EPA-90V9-78-024
Environmental Impact Statement
Conference
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta Civic Center
395 Piemont Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
7-8 December 1977
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
"The purpose of the Conference is to get to know each other better and
to discuss how we can improve the preparation and review of environmental
impact statements. NEPA has been on the books now for seven years. I
feel that one of the things that brought about NEPA was the fact that
man's ability to modify his environment had increased much faster than
his ability to predict the consequences of such actions. There has been
considerable concern expressed about the costs in money and time to
complete the NEPA process. We in EPA feel that all Federal agencies
have a continuing responsibility to insure consideration of environmental
amenities in governmental decision making. The cost of EIS preparation
and review by Federal agencies in the Southeast is millions of dollars
annually. I hope this Conference will help us improve our efficiency in
accomplishing the NEPA process and will result in a significantly improved
quality of the human environment."
-------
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS/CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 7, 1977, Room 201
1:00 p.m.
Welcome
John C. White
Regional Administrator
EPA Region IV, Atlanta
1:15 p.m.
The New CEQ Guidelines
Nick Yost
CEQ, Washington, D.C.
2:45 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
Coffee Break
Endangered Species
Robert Cook
Fish 6e Wildlife Service
Atlanta
4:30 p.m.
Prime and Unique Farmlands
Mark Safley
Soil Conservation Service
Nashville, Tennessee
5:00 p.m.
Getting to Know Each Other
Crystal Ballroom
Section E
Hilton Hotel
-------
Thursday, December 8, 1977, Room 104
8:15 a.m. Wild and Scenic Rivers
Fred Klimas
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Atlanta (no abstract received)
Claude Terry
Claude Terry & Associates
Atlanta (no abstract received)
9:30 a.m.
Coffee Break
9:45 a.m.
Revision to Clean Air Act
Randy Mayfield
EPA, Atlanta
10:45 a.m. Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Elizabeth Lyon
Historic Preservation
Department of Natural Resources
State of Georgia (no abstract
received)
11:30 a.m. Lunch
1:00 p.m. Workshops I, II, III, IV
2:30 p.m. Coffee Break
2:45 p.m. Workshops I, II, III, IV
4:15 p.m., Closing Remarks
Benny Keel
National Park Service
Atlanta
John E. Hagan
Chief, EIS Branch, EPA
Atlanta
LIST OF ATTENDEES
-------
CEQ's New Regulations
Nicholas C. Yost
I. PRESIDENT CARTER'S EXECUTIVE ORDER 11991 (May 24, 1977), which
directs the Council on Environmental Quality to:
"Issue regulations to Federal agencies for implementation of
the procedural provisions of [NEPA]. Such regulations shall
be developed after consultation with affected agencies and
after such public hearings as shall be appropriate. They will
be designed to make the environmental impact statement process
more useful to decision-makers and the public; and to reduce
paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data,
in order to emphasize the need to focus on real environmental
issues and alternatives. They will require impact statements
to be concise, clear, and to the point, and supported by
evidence that agencies have made the necessary environmental
analyses. The Council shall include in its regulations pro-
cedures (1) for the early preparation of environmental impact
statements, and (2) for the referral to the Council of conflicts
between agencies concerning the implementation of [NEPA]."
II. PROCESS OF ADOPTING NEPA REGULATIONS
1. Federal Register Notices
2. Hearings
3. Questionnaire
4. Meetings with Agencies
5. Future Schedule
III. REDUCING PAPERWORK
Agencies shall reduce excess paperwork by:
(a) Reducing the length of environmental impact statements
(section 1502.2(d)), such as by adopting appropriate page limits
(section 1501.7(b)(1)).
(b) Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental
impact statements (section 1502.2(a)).
-------
(c) Discussing only briefly issues other than significant ones
(section 1502.2(b)).
(d) Writing environmental impact statements in plain language
(section 1502.8).
(e) Following a clear format for environmental impact statements
(section 1502.10).
(f) Emphasizing the portions of the environmental impact state-
ment that are useful to decisionmakers and the public (section 1502.14
and 1502.14) and reducing emphasis on background material (section
1502.16).
(g) Using the scoping process not only to identify significant
environmental issues deserving of study, but also to dismiss insignif-
icant issues, narrowing the scope of the environmental impact statement
process accordingly (section 1501.7).
(h) Summarizing the environmental impact statement (section 1502.12)
and circulating the summary instead of the entire environmental impact
statement if the latter is unusually long (section 1502.19).
(i) Using program, policy, or plan environmental impact statements
and tiering from statements of broad scope to those of narrower scope to
eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues (sections 1502.14
and 1502.20).
(j) Incorporating by reference (section 1502.21).
(k) Integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental review
and consultation requirements (section 1502.25).
(1) Requiring comments to be as specific as possible (section 1503^3).
(m) Attaching and circulating only changes to the draft environ-
mental impact statement, rather than rewriting and circulating the entire
statement when changes are minor (sections 1503.4(b) and 1503.5(b)).
(n) Eliminating duplication with State and local procedures by
providing for joint preparation (section 1506.2) and with other Federal
procedures by providing for one agency's adoption of appropriate environ-
mental documents prepared by another agency (section 1506.3).
(o) Combining environmental documents with other documents (section
1506.4).
(p) Using categorical exclusions to exclude from environmental
impact statement requirements categories of actions which do not indi-
vidually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment
(section 1508.4).
- 2 -
-------
(q) Using a finding of no significant impact and not preparing an
environmental impact statement when an action not otherwise excluded
will not have a significant effect on the human environment (section
1508.12).
IV. REDUCING DELAY
Agencies shall reduce delay by:
(a) Integrating the NEPA process into early planning (section
1501.2).
(b) Emphasizing interagency cooperation before the environmental
impact statement is drafted rather than adversary comments on a completed
document (section 1501.6).!
(c) Insuring the swift and fair resolution of lead agency disputes
(section 1501.5).
(d) Using the scoping process for an early identification of what
are and what are not the real issues (section 1501.7).
(e) Establishing appropriate time limits for the environmental
impact statement process (sections 1501.7(b)(2) and 1501.8).
(f) Preparing environmental impact statements early in the process
(section 1502.5).
(g) Integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental review
and consultation requirements (section 1502.25).
(h) Eliminating duplication with State and local procedures by
providing for joint preparation (section 1506.2) and with other Federal
procedrues by providing for one agency's adoption of appropriate environ-
mental documents prepared by another agency (section 1506.3).
(i) Combining environmental documents with other documents (section
1506.4).
(j) Using accelerated procedures for proposals for legislation
(section 1506.8).
(k) Using categorical exclusions to exclude from environmental
impact statement requirements categories of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment
(section 1508.4).
(1) Using a finding of no significant impact and not preparing an
environmental impact statement when an action not otherwise excluded
will not have a significant effect on the human environment (section
1508.12).
- 3 -
-------
V. NOT JUST BETTER PAPERWORK, BUT BETTER DECISIONS
1. All of 102(2)
2. Interdisciplinary preparation
a. Agency capability to comply
b. List of preparers
3. Write in plain language
4. Decision based on impartial analyses
a. Restrictions of conflict of interest by applicants
5. Predecision Referrals —
a. Sec. 309 ) Interim guidance
b. NEPA )
6. Emphasis on decisions
a. Record of decision — how was EIS used
b. Is the result environmentally satisfactory
7. Emphasis on follow-up
a. Requires mitigation
b. Monitoring and enforcement
c. Report back
Our twin goals were those of reducing emphasis on paperwork arid procedure
and reemphasizing environmentally sensitive decisions. I hope we will have
achieved those goals.
-------
Endangered Species Act (1973) C. Robert Cooke, Jr.
While the Endangered Species Act of 1973 addresses all aspects of
the preservation, and enhancement, and well-being of species threatened
with extinction, the principal topic of our discussion deals with responsi-
bilities of Federal Agencies as provided under Section 7 of the Act.
Section 7 states:
SEC. 7. The Secretary shall review other programs
administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance
of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal departments
and agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance
of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of
the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conser-
vation of endangered species and threatened species listed
pursuant to section 4 of this Act and by taking such action
necessary to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried
out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such
endangered species and threatened species or result in the
destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is
determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate
with the affected States, to be critical.
I would now like to give a brief step down sequence of the Consultation
Process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It might
be noted here that consultation can only be carried out between a Federal
agency and the Service.
It is the obligation and responsibility of the Federal agencies to
analyze and review their activities and programs to ascertain if listed
species or their habitats will be affected beneficially or detrimentally.
If the Federal agencies or their authorized representatives desire the
assistance of the FWS in determining the effects of their actions,
informal consultation can and should be initiated at the area office
level between the FWS and the Federal agencies or their authorized
-------
representatives. This level of communication will be particularly useful
for obtaining information on listed species or their habitats or clari-
fying the consultation process. It may also assist the Federal agencies
in confirming their analysis or judgment of beneficial or detrimental
effects that could result from their planned action on listed species or
their habitats. Such consultation is supplement to and not a substitute
for the formal consultation.
If a Federal agency judges that listed species or their habitats will
not be affected by the agency actions, the requirements of Section 7
will not apply.
If it is considered likely that listed species or their habitats could
be affected, the agency should convey a written request for consultation
to the Regional Director for the Region where the activity of program
will be carried out.
The FWS may become aware of an agency's planning or conducting an
activity or program that could affect listed species or their habitats
that has not received the benefit of the consultation process. When this
situation exists the Regional Director will promptly notify the agency
stating the nature of the action, and requesting that the consultation
process be initiated.
Following the request for consultation from the Federal agency the
Regional Director may arrange for a "threshold examination" of the
area in which the activity or program is proposed to be carried out.
A threshold exam may consist of an on-site inspection of the area and/or
a review of available information to make a preliminary assessment as to
whether listed species or their habitats will be impacted.
If the Regional Director is of the opinion, as a result of the threshold
exam, (1) the continued existence of a listed species will not be
jeopardized, (2) the area to be impacted will not be determined by further
examination to be critical habitat, or (3) the action will not result in
the destriction or modification of critical habitat, the Agency will so
-------
be notified in.writing and further consultation will be unnecessary.
If the Regional Director as a result of the threshold examination is
of the opinion that the action may result in jeopardizing the continued
existence of listed species or the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat, he will so notify the agency, in writing and a time
frame in which the consultation process should be completed will be
established in agreement with the Federal agency. The Federal agency
with the assistance of the FWS, state, private, or other sources of
expertise shall then initiate appropriate surveys, studies, research and
other means to obtain data and information relative to the impacts of the
activity on listed species or their habitats. The data and information
will be used by the Regional Director in rendering his final biological
opinion.
If the Regional Director as a result of the threshold examination is of
the opinion that the activity will destroy or modify habitat that may-
be essential to the survival or recovery of listed species but which has
not been determined to be critical, he shall so notify the agency, in
writing, and promptly initiate procedures to determine if the area is
"critical habitat".
Consultation referred to in Section 7 will have been completed when the
Regional Director has notified, in writing, the Federal Agency of the
final biological opinion. If requested by the agency the FWS shall make
recommendations. Such biological opinion and recommendations shall be
accompanied by a statement of the reasons and biological evidence,
including appropriate documentation, contributing to the opinions and
recommendations. Upon receipt of the biological opinion and recommen-
dations of the FWS, it will be the prerogative and responsibility of
the Federal agency to determine the final course of action that it will
follow in light of its statutory requirements.
-------
The consultation and assistance process clearly should be reflected in
a written record from its inception to completion. Where the consultation
requirements or procedures related to other laws or procedures, such as
NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, have been used to
facilitate the consultation and assistance process, it should be reflected
clearly in the final documents required by these other laws (e.g.,
Environmental Impact Statement, environmental analyses, or assessments,
Fish and Wildlife reports, etc.). However, the satisfaction of the
requirements of these other statutes does not itself relieve a Federal
agency of its obligation to comply with the consultation procedures.
I would like to close by saying that Region 4, Fish and Wildlife Service
has recently initiated Area Offices. These Area Offices are responsible
for all fish and wildlife activities in their areas including the
Initial steps of consultation. There are three area offices located at:
Jacksonville, Florida - Don Hankla, Area Manager
Asheville, N. C. - William Hickling, Area Manager
Jackson, Mississippi - Russell Earnest, Area Manager
I have a handout available that has the addresses and the telephone
numbers of these offices and the states for which they are responsible.
-------
Mr. Donald 0. Hankla, Area Manager
U. S. F1sh and Wildlife Service
900 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonsvllle, Florida 32207
FTS 946-2267 Comm. 904/791-2267
Georgia, Florida, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, & U S Virgin Islands
Mr. William C. Hickling, Area Manager
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Room 279
Ashevllle, North Carolina 28801
FTS 672-0321 Comm. 704/258-2850, ext. 321
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, & Kentucky
Mr. Russell D. Earnest, Area Manager
U. S. F1sh and Wildlife Service
200 East Pascagoula Street, Suite 490
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
FTS 490-4900 Comm. 601/969-4900
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, & Mississippi
-------
The Question of Prime Farmland
John M. Salley
Land is a resource American society has historically taken for granted. Like
air and water it was thought to be plentiful. However, unlike air and water,
awareness of its fragility and finite nature has been slow in coming. Demands
on our land resource have been steadily increasing since this nation was first
colonized. During the period 1950 to 1970 urban lands acquired 13.5 million
rural acres to accommodate its expanding population and supporting structure.
Accelerated loss of rural land, including cropland, has caused great national
concern.
Concern at the national level has been voiced for the ability of the United
States to maintain or even to increase its production of food and fiber.
National concern has also been voiced for environmental values associated
with land as a component of all our life systems. At state and local levels,
the location as well as the amount and quality of farmland are important to
state economic strength. Concern at this level is also focused on the support
systems for farmland in addition to land value for compatible uses such as
open space, water supply, wildlife habitat, recreation, and waste recycling.
Therefore, identification of prime and other types of farmland is important
in that it serves interests at all levels. It serves as a "yardstick" of our
national capacity for agricultural production. And it provides a way of
assessing the incremental losses of productive land to urban and other develop-
ment.
-------
- 2 -
In 1974, USDA began a concentrated effort to stud/ the prime farmland ques-
tions rising out of land use controversy. A national seminar on prime lands
was held in 1975. Among other things, the seminar encouraged USDA to:
1. Develop a clear policy on the issue;
2. Begin immediately to define, inventory, and monitor land
use trends involving prime lands;
3. Develop with CEQ procedures to give attention to prime
farmland in the preparation and review of environmental
impact statements; and,
4. Be an advocate of prime farmland retention and protection
from premature or unwise conversion.
The Soil Conservation Service began inventory of important farmlands in 1975.
Several types of land and land uses were and are being inventoried. Those
categories are prime farmland, unique farmland, additional farmland of state-
wide importance, other farmland of local importance, urban builtup areas larger
than 10 acres, water areas larger than 10 acres, and other land. The initial
survey showed that there is an annual loss of about one million acres of prime
farmland and another one million acres of lower quality land also capable of
producing food and fiber. That amounts to over 5000 acres of farmland removed
from production every day. But how are prime and unique farmlands defined?
Prime farmland is land best suited for producing food, feed, forage,
fiber, and oilseed crops, and also available for these uses. It has the
soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained
high yields of crops economically when treated and managed according to modern
farming methods. Qualitative criteria for identifying prime farmland are
given in SCS Land Inventory and Monitoring Memorandum-3 (CFR Part 657, attached)
-------
- 3 -
Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the
production of specific high value food and fiber crops. It has the special
combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply
needed to produce sustained, high quality and/or high yields of a specific
crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Examples
of these special crops include citrus, olives, cranberries, and tart cherries.
Additional farmland of statewide importance is land, in addition to
prime and unique farmlands, that is valuable for production of food, feed,
fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Criteria for defining and delineating
this land are determined by appropriate state agencies. These lands are
being defined according to specific, named kinds of soil that nearly qualify
as prime farmland.
Approximately 1,200 counties in the United States have been selected as
having the most urgent need for the important farmlands inventory. These are
counties with significant acreage of prime farmland and are currently under
urbanization pressure or pressure for other land use changes. The anticipated
date for completion of these 1,200 county inventories is 1981. The nationwise
inventory is expected to be completed by 1986.
After prime and other types of farmland have been identified it is up to
local government to declare which lands are to be protected from development.
USDA firmly believes that such designation of lands is a public policy process
that should occur at state and local levels. Because of this we do not expect
uniformity of rules and regulations. Many states have established mechanisms
for regulating farmland loss which vary from state to state; all are practical.
-------
- 4 -
At the federal level, the impact of prime farmland conversions on envir-
onmental quality has been recognized. The Council on Environmental Quality
has notified all federal agencies that environmental impact statements should
evaluate and weigh the effect of proposed projects on prime and unique farm-
lands. Where developments are planned and/or funded agencies must now consider
the additional factor of soil resource. This additional factor in the planning
"mix" is a reflection of concern for our ability to support efficient, stable
agriculture and other values for years to come.
Prime farmland retention as a national agricultural policy interacts with
other national policies. Farming uses a small, but important, amount of our
total energy. Therefore, constant or diminishing allocation of energy to agri-
culture adds importance to the need for prime farmland retention because prime
lands are more energy efficient than lands of lesser quality. If more land of
lesser value must be devoted to agriculture to compensate for lost prime farm-
land production there will be greater energy expenditure and greater possibi-
lity of environmental damage. A national growth policy which ignores the
necessity for farmland retention will accelerate prime farmland loss. However,
we realize that retention of all farmland could cause dislocation of some
needed non-farm land uses. This is why we feel that with good resource infor-
mation and citizen participation rational and environmentally-compatible land
use decisions can be made-
-------
4030
approval for operations and other wa-
tershrojects selected for deauthoiiza-
tlon by the State Conservationist
where it Is unlikely that planned mea-
sures will be Installed. The deauthori-
zation of funding will remove the pro-
jects from consideration for funds,
staff assistance, and other resource de-
mands. The released resources will be
available for concentration on high.
priority projects which can be In-
stalled in a more efficient way.
DATES: Effective date: February 7,
1978.,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
J. W. Mitchell, Director, Watersheds.
Division, Soil Conservation Service,
UJ5. Department of Agriculture,
P.O. Box 2890. Washington, D.C,
20013. 202-447-3527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On Tuesday. December 6, 1977. the
Sod Conservation Service published
proposed ruletnaking permitting ad-
ministrative actions to deauthorlze
watershed projects.
DISCUSSION OF MAJOR COM-
MENTS: There was only one comment
received. The respondent was con-
cerned about the deauthorization of
watershed projects included in an
overall plan with downstream works
by the Corps of Engineers where the
timing of construction for Corps of
Engineers projects had not kept UP
with those of the watershed projects.
The respondent would be satisfied If
the proposal would permit the delay-
Ing of watershed construction starts
beyond the eight (8) years for coordi-
nation with Corps of Engineers pro-
jects. Section 622.55(a) states in part.
"If.'- after agreement with sponsors.
the State Conservationist determines
It unlikely that planned measures will
be installed, he will initiate project
deauthorization action, as provided In
paragraph (b) of this section. State
Conservationists may elect to begin
deauthorization sooner where it Is un-
likely that planned measures will be
installed and sponnors concur in the
deauthorl'/atlon." The determination
to deauthorlze is keyed to a decision
that planned measures will not be in-
Stalled. The delaying of a construction
start beyond the eight (8) years Is per-
mitted if there are adequate assur-
ances that the planned measure will
be Installed. Therefore, section 622.55
is published as final rules as follows:
Section 822.55— Deauthorization of
projects
(a) By February 1, each calendar
year, the State Conservationist shall
examine watershed projects for which
he Is responsible In which no structur-
al measures have been Installed for
eight (8) years after approval for In-
stallation of works of improvement
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(See section 822.40). If, after agree-
ment with sponsors, the State Conser-
vationist determines it unlikely that
planned measures will be installed, he
will initiate project deauthorization
action, as provided In subsection (b) of
this section. State Conservationists
may elect to begin deauthorization
sooner where it is unlikely that
planned measures will be Installed and
sponsors concur in the deauthoriza-
tion.
(b> The. 8Ut« CwiwmUonisS wlX*
notify the Administrator of the Boll
Conservation Bervlce and concerned
State and otliay Rgeneias, %htcte .had.
been, notified that the project wa« ap-
proved for inatalloMon of wflrks.of 1m,
provementa, of the proposed deauthor-
ization. The environmental eonae-
q^ences of deauthorizatloQ will be do-
cumented by an appropriate Environ-
mental Assessment and other steps, as
required by SCS procedure <7 CFR
650). If authorization for funding by
the Administrator Of the Soil Conser-
vation Service is subject to approval
by resolution by a committee of Con-
gress, the appropriate committee will
be given written notice of the pro-
posed deauthorlzatlon sixty (60) days
before final deauthorization action la
taken. Project* approved administra-
tively wfll be deauthorized by State
Conservationists after notification of
the Administrator of the Soil Conser-
vation Service, Notice of all project
deauthoi iaation will be published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER by the State
Conservationist. The State Conserva-
tionist will notify sponsors and con-
cerned Federal. State, and local agen-
cies of final action. Deauthorization
proceedings may be canceled by the
State Conservationist based upon
public, Congressional, or sponsor
action at any time before the notice Is
published.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 10.904. Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Program—Pub. L, 83-
566, 18 U.S.C. (1001^1008).)
Dated: January 24, 1978
R. M. DAVIS.
Administrator, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 78 2693 Filed 1-30-78; 845 am]
[3410-16]
suscHAm* F—SUFPO«T ACTIVITIES
PART «7—PRIM! AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS
Subparl A—Impwiant Farmlands Inventory
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS).
ACTIQN: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule prescribes gen-
eral guidelines for a national program
.of Inventorying prime and unique
farmland, as well as other farmlands
of statewide or local importance. It
Incl specific criteria for the definition
of prime farmland. This rule is neces-
sary because the Nation needs to know
the extent and location of the best
land for producing food, feed, fiber,
forage, and oilseed crops. '
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31. 1978,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
R. I, piderikoen, Director. Inventory
and Monitoring Division, Soil Con-
servation Secvioe, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, PO. Box 2aw>, Wash-
ington. D.C. apo,i?, telephone 203-
447-4424.
BVPPLErMENTARY INFORMATION:
On August 23. 1977. the Soil Conserva-
tion Service published In the FEDERAL
REGISTER (42 FR 42356) proposed rules
for the conduct of its Important Farm-
lands .Inventory. During the 30-day
commenting period. Id letters were re-
ceived from 4 Federal agencies. 5 State
and Commonwealth agencies. 6 private
firms associated with coal production.
and 1 State Chamber pf Commerce.
All written comments were given
consideration In developing the final
rule.
The fuli text Of all comments re
eelved Is on file and available for
public Inspection In: Room 5214,
South Agriculture Building. Inventory
and Monitoring Division, Soil Conser-
vation Service, U.S. Department of Ag
rlculture. Washington. D.C. 20013.
DISCUSSION or MAJOR COMMENTS
DEFINITION Or PRIME FARMLAND
One agency asked that SCS change
the prime farmland definition to in
elude land that would qualify as primt
farmland alter irrigation is provided
SCS haa determined that this would
change the lnt«nt of the Inventory
The prime farmland definition in
eludes areas that currently are Irn
gated or have proper drainage to pro
vide the necessary water regime tc
meet the criteria. The Inventory Is U
be kept current, as stated In § 657.2.
A Federal agency asked that SCfc
add the following words U
}657.5(a)(2)(vl) "or are flooded onh
under controlled conditions for irrigat
ed farming." SCS has determined tha
the criteria for Irrigation are ad<-
quately covered in 5857.5(a)(2Ki>. Irn
gallon, regardless of the type used, i
not commonly perceived as floodin,
and the statements should be clearl
understood.
Another commenter proposed tha
the entire frigid temperature regim
Include some soils too cold for norma
farming practices. SCS recognizes thi
problem, but Is aware also that ther
are soils within the frigid temperatur
FUMRAl MOtSTM. VOL. 43, NO. 31—TUtSDAY, JAMUAMV 31,
-------
to be Included In the prime farmland
definition. Many of the soils that are
too cold for normal farming practices
also have other feat ares that will
eliminate them from the prime farm-
land classification. Based on data
available at this time the entire frigid
temperature regime la Included, pro-
vlded all the other criteria are satis-
fled.
A private Industry commenter SUK-
geaU that an additional criterion' be
added to require that prime farmland
•olla hure an A horizon with an accu-
mulation of humified organic matter
of not less than 0.8 percent associated
with the mineral fraction. SCS agrees
that organic matter content is a very
Important criterion for explaining the
behavior of soils. However. SCS does
not agree that an organic matter crite-
rion ia needed in the rules. Adding
juch a requirement would disqualify
thousands or acres of highly produc-
tive Irrigated soils that have low or-
ganic matter content. These are
among the most productive soils of the
Nation when treated with acceptable
management techniques. .
Another coromenter suggests that
the permeability rate be changed from
008 Inch to 0,2 inch per hour hi all
soil horizons. ' SCS does not agree.
Such a change would delete millions
of acres of highly productive soils In
the Mississippi Delta and other areas
of the Western and Southeastern
United States. Such soils require care-
ful management techniques. However.
ihehe soils are some of the Nation'*
motl productive lands.
A private company suggests that the
criteria in § 657.5(a)(2)(l) be expanded
to include the concept of cultivated
crops adapted to the region and to_
define both cultivated crops and root"
wnes. SCS agrees and has added the
definitions as requested.
Several people expressed concern
that the proposed definition of prime
farmland was too rigid for Individual
States that might want to modify cer-
tain parameters to adequately reflect
prime fannland. SCS agrees arid has
chanced §657.4(a)(2) to allow flexibil-
ity In Application of the permeability
criterion or permit the restricting of
oilier specific criteria to assure that
the most accurate Identification of
prime farmlands Is made for each
SiAte. The national criteria will not
mange, but this flexibility permits
SUU; Conservationists, In cooperation
*tth others, to Identify soil mapping
t^nll* that Include a portion of both
Prime and nonprlme farmlands or that
tuve chemical and physical properties
uui! cannot be determined accurately
TmKh to clearly place the soil In or
•' >'• of the criteria.
CONCKHN FOR WJSTLANDS
A Federal agency was concerned
Hie definition of prime farmlands
intend that the definition of prime
farmland include areas that currently
qualify as wetlands. They are elimi-
nated from the criteria on the basts of
5657.5(a)(2Xlv).
CATEGORIES OF THE INVENTORY
Several private industry comment*™
objected to the inclusion of unique
farmlands, farmlands of statewide im-
portance, and farmlands of local Im-
portance in the Inventory, arguing
that they extend the Intent of Con-
greas as expressed in Pub. L. 95-87
which spealta ouly to th« term prime
farmland aa jt relate* to the surface
mining of coaL They argue the pro-
posed definition doe* not conform to
the definition *et forth on page S8101
of the Congressional Record for May
20. 1977. SCS ha* determined that the
specific definition for prime farmlands
contained In ! 857J(a) is .exactly the
same as that which appeaj-ed on page
S8101 of the Congressional Record for
May 20. 1977. In all technical aspects.
Minor ohanjfes were made from the
wording In order to remove procedural
guidelines and other sentences that
did not relate specifically to scientific
criteria lor prime taitalaad. 6CS rules
(7 CPR Part 657). are not intended to
be utilized only for the purposes of im-
plementing Pub. L. 9&-87. It estab-
lishes an Important farroiand Inven-
tory that covers four categories of im-
portant farmland*. Only one category.
prime farmland, has applicability to
the implementation of Pub, L, 1)5-87.
INVENTORY MAP SCALE
A Federal agency encourage* the
overall use of l:100.000-scale base
maps to provide uniformity among
county map* and to assist in making
comparisons among the national farm-
lands inventory and the national wet-
lands inventory. SCS concurs with the
goal of keeping all maps to a, consis-
tent map accuracy and utilizing
common scales wherever possible.
However, in some counties with com-
plex patterns, larger maps are needed.
In those area* or where other de-
mands dictate. State Conservationists
may utilize base maps of other scales.
INVENTORY PROCEDURES
A State agency suggests that provi-
sions should be made for addition or
deletion of lands whose status has
changed in regard to the prime farm-
land criteria. SCS will keep these in-
ventories current and acreage will be
deleted when it fails to meet the crite-
ria for prime farmland.
A public service agency asked that
SCS not proceed with the Identifica-
tion of Important farmland until their
State had the opportunity to test and
modify definitions and ultimately paa<»
State legislation to define the agrlcul-
SCU has determined that tne «y»tem
as proposed allow* State* to develop
statewide definition* either by legisla-
tion or other policy. Definition* tot
unique farmland. farmland of
statewide Importance, and additional
farmland of local importance are In-
tentionally left broad enough to be de-
fined appropriately *t cacti' State
level. The definition of prime farm-
land must be uniformly applied in ajl
States to provide *. b*ai* tor nation*!
policy actions,
In accordance with thece determina-
tion*, 7 CFR Part 867 U pubURtUKl A*
/trial
(Catalog of Aderal, DOHw*tic
prottmm* numbered lti.900 (Orwtt Flaw*),
10.901 4Re*ouroo Co aberration and Dewlop-
menu; JO.eoa-CSoU wad Watar Cao*erT»-
Uoa>. 10.604 (Wktenhed Protection and
Flood Prevention), sad lOWtt cPlMU M*t«-
Dated: January 23.
B. M. DAVIS,
Adm.inittra.tOT,
Soil Cotuervation Service.
S«c.
897.1 Purpose.
657.3 Policy.
857.3 Applicability,
667.4 SCS RespoiutbilltlM.
667.B Identification of important Una-
land*
AUTHORITY: 18 U.S.C. 5»0a-f. «; 7 CPK
2.62: Pub. L. 00-47; 42 VAC. 4321 et *eq.
rtory
9 6S7.1 PurpoM.
SCS Is concerned about any action
that tends to impair the productive ca-
pacity of American agriculture. The
Nation needs to know the extent and
location of the best land for producing
food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed
crops. In addition to prime and unique
farmlands, farmlands that are of
statewide and local Importance for
producing these crop* also need to be
Identified.
5 «57.2 Policy.
It Is SCS policy to make and keep
current an Inventory of the prime
farmland and unique farmland of the
Nation. This Inventory is to be carried
out In cooperation with other interest-
ed agencies at the national. State, and
local levels of government. The objec-
tive of the inventory Is to idenUfy the
extent and location of important rural
lands needed to produce food. feed.
fiber, forage. and oilseed crops.
8 f»67.S Applicability.
Inventories made under this memo-
rajidurc do not constitute a designa-
tion of any land area to a specific land
ut>e Such designation* are the respon-
Blbimy Oif Appropriate local and State
OJt.CltaLS..
FEDERAL ftMISTflL VOi. «, MO. Jl—TUESOAT. JAMJMY 3t
-------
4032
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1657.4 8CS ReiponaibilitieB.
la) State Conservationist. Each SCS
State Conservationist Is to:
(1) Provide leadership for Inven-
tories of important farmlands for the
State, county, or other subdivision of
the State. Each is to work with appro-
priate agencies of State government
and others to establish priorities for
making these Inventories.
' (2) Identify the soil mapping units
within the State that qualify as prime.
In doing this. State Conservationists,
1 In consultation with the cooperators
of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey, have the flexibility to make
local deviation from the permeability
criterion or to be more restrictive for
other specific criteria In order to
'assure the most accurate Identification
of prime farmlands for a State. Each Is
to invite representatives of the Gover-
nor's office, agencies of the State gov-
ernment, and others to Identify farm-
lands of statewide importance and
unique farmlands that are to be inven-
toried within the framework of this
memorandum.
(3) Prepare a statewide list of:
(1) Soil mapping units that meet the
criteria for prime farmland;
(11) Soil mapping units that are
farmlands of statewide Importance If
the criteria used were based on soil
information; and
(ill) Specific high-value food and
fiber crops that are grown and, when
combined with other favorable factors,
qualify lands to meet the criteria for
unique farmlands. Copies are to be
furnished to SCS Field Offices and to
SCS Technical Service Centers
(TSC's). (Ste 1 CFR 600.3. 600.6.)
(4) Coordinate soil mapping units
that qualify as prime farmlands with
adjacent States, including the States
responsible for the soil series. Since
farmlands of statewide importance
and unique farmlands are designated
by others at the State level, the soil
mapping units and areas identified
need not be coordinated among States.
(5) Instruct SCS District Conserva-
tionists to arrange local review of
lands identified as prime, unique, and
additional rannluu<_u of statewide Im-
portance by Conservation Districts
and representatives of local agencies.
This review is to determine if addition-
al farmland should be identified lo
meet local declslonmakmg needs.
(6) Make and publish each Impor-
tant farmland Inventory on a base
map of national map accuracy at an
Intermediate scale of 1:50.000 or
1:100.000. State Conservationists who
need base maps of other scales are to
submit their requests with justifica-
tion to the Administrator for consider-
ation.
Cb) Technical Service Center*. Field
representatives are to provide request-
ed technical assistance to State Con-
servationists in inventorying prime
and unique farmlands (see 7 CFR
600.2). This Includes reviewing
statewide lists of soil mapping units
that meet the criteria for prime farm-
lands and resolving coordination prob-
lems that may occur among States for
specific soil series or soil mapping
units.
(c) National Office. The Assistant
Administrator for Field Services (see 7
CFR 600.2) Is to provide national lead-
ership In preparing guidelines for in-
ventorying prime farmlands and for
national statistics and reports of prime
farmlands.
9667.5 Identification of important farm-
. land*.
(a) Prime farmlands—<1) General.
Prime farmland la land that has the
beat combination of physical and
chemical characteristics for producing
food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops, and Is also available for these'
uses (the land could be cropland, pas-
tureland, rangeland, forest land, or
other land, but not urban built-up
land or water). It has the soil quality,
growing season, and moisture supply
needed to economically produce sus-
tained high yields of crops when treat-
ed and managed. Including water man-
agement, according to acceptable
fanning methods. In general, prime
farmlands have an adequate and de-
pendable water supply from precipita-
tion or irrigation, a favorable tempera-
ture and growing season, acceptable
acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt
and sodium content, and few or no
rocks. They are permeable to water
and air. Prime farmlands are not ex-
cessively credible or saturated with
water for a long period of time, and
they either do not flood frequently or
are protected from flooding. Examples
of soils that qualify as prime farmland
are Palouae silt loam, 0 to 7 percent
slopes; Brookston silty clay loam,
drained; and Taraa 81!Ly clay loam, 0 to
5 percent slopes.
(2) Specific criteria. Prime farm-
lands meet all the following criteria:
Terms used In this section are defined
In USDA publications: "Soil Taxon-
omy, Agriculture Handbook 436":
"Soil Survey Manual, Agriculture
Handbook 18"; "Rainfall-erosion
Losses From Cropland. Agriculture
Handbook 282"; "Wind Erosion Forces
In the United States and Their Use in
Predicting Soil Loss, Agriculture
Handbook 346"; and "Saline and
Alkali Soils, Agriculture Handbook
60."
(1) The soils have:
(A) Aqulc. udlc, ustic, or xerlc mols-.
turc regimes and sufficient available
water capacity within a depth of 40
Inches (1 meter), or In the root zone
(root zone Is the part of the soil that Is
penetrated or can be penetrated by
plant roots) If the root zone Is less
than 40 Inches deep, to produce the
commonly grown cultivated crop* (cul-
tivated crops include, but are not
limited to, grain, forage, fiber, oilseed,
sugar beets, sugarcane, vegetables, to-
bacco, orchard, vineyard, and bush
fruit crops) adapted to the region In. 7
or more years out of 10; or
(B) Xerlc or ustlc moisture regimes
in which the available water capacity
is limited, but the area has a devel-
oped irrigation water supply that is
dependable (a dependable water
supply is one In which enough water la
available for Irrigation In 8 out of 10
years for the crops commonly crown)
and of adequate quality; or,
(C) Arldlo or tonii: moisture regimes
and the area has a developed irriga-
tion water supply that Is dependable
and Of adequate quality; and.
(11) The soils have a temperature
regime that is frigid, mesic, thermic.
or hyperthermlc (pergellc and crylc re-
gimes are excluded). These are soils
that, at a depth of 20 Inches (50 cm).
have a mean annual temperature
higher than 32* F (0' C). In addition.
the mean summer temperature at this
depth in soils with an O horizon is
higher than.47* F (8* C); in soils that
have no Q horizon, the mean summer
temperature ia higher than 69' F (15*
C); and,
(111) The solte have a pH between 4.5
and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth
of 40 inches (1 meter) or In the root
zone If the root zone is less than 40
inches deep: and,
(iv) The soils either have no water
table or bave a water table that is
maintained at a sufficient depth
during the cropping season to allow
cultivated crops common to the area
to be grown: and,
(v) The soils can be managed so that,
in all horizons within a depth of 40
inches (1 meter) or in the root zone if
the root zone is less than 40 Inches
deep, during part of each year the con-
ductivity of the saturation extract is
less than 4 mmhos/cm and the ex-
changable sodium percentage (ESP) is
less than 15; and,
(vl) The soils are not flooded fre
quently during the growing season
(less often than once In 2 years): and.
(vli) The product of K (credibility
factor) x percent slope Is less than 2.0.
and the product of I (soils credibility)
x C (climatic factor) does not exceed
60; and
(vlli) The soils have a permeability
rate of at least 0.06 Inch (0.15 cm) per
hour In the upper 20 inches (50 cm)
and the mean annual soil temperature
at a depth of 20 Inches (50 cm) Is less
than 59* F (15' C); the permeability
rate is not a limiting factor if the
mean annual soil temperature is 59* F
(15' C) or higher, and.
(ix) Less than 10 percent of the sur-
face layer (upper 6 Inches) in these
soils consists of rock fragments coarser
than 3 inches (7.6 cm).
fEDERAL IKMSm. VOL. 43, NO. 2WTUCSDAV, JANUAIY 31, !«?•
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
4033
tt» UniQue farmland—<1) General
Unique farmland la land other than
prime farmland that Is used for the
production of specific high value food
and fiber crops. It has the special com-
bination of soil quality, location, grow-
ing season, and moisture supply
needed to economically produce sus-
tained high quality and/or high yields
of a specific crop when treated and
managed according to acceptable
fanning methods. Examples of sxich
crops are citrus, tree nuts, olives, cran-
berries, fruit, and vegetables.
(2) Specific Characteristics of
unique farmland. (1) Is used for a spe-
cific high-value food or fiber crop;
-------
Revisions to the Clean AirAct
Randy Mayfield
INTRODUCTION
With the signing of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments on August 7,
1977, by President Carter, many new tasks have been placed upon the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States. One of the
most pressing of these tasks is the requirement of Section 107(d) of
the revised Act that EPA publish by February 3, 1978, a list of air
quality control regions (AQCRs), or portions thereof, reflecting their
attainment/non-attainment status for all criteria pollutants. The
categories specified by the new Act are as follows:
(1) Areas violating national primary standards
(2) Areas violating national secondary standards (but not primary)
(3) Areas attaining standards
(4) Areas which cannot be classified on the basis of available data.
There are a number of implications of designating an area as attainment,
non-attainment, or unclassified. For any pollutant, the designation of
"non-attainment area" will require that a State implementation plan (SIP)
revision be developed for that area by January 1, 1979. During this interim
period the present EPA non-attainment policy regarding emission offsets
(Interpretative Ruling, 41 Federal Register 55524-30, December 21, 1976)
will be applied in the non-attainment areas. If an acceptable SIP is not
developed, severe sanctions are provided: withholding of control agency
grants, termination of certain other Federal funds, and a prohibition on
construction of new major facilities.
-------
For participate matter or S02» where an area is unclassified or is
designated as attainment, any major new or modified sources considering
construction will face a review to ensure that they do not cause significant
deterioration of air quality (i.e., prevention of significant air quality
deterioration or PSD). In addition, it may be necessary to expand the PSD
review to consider the impact of sources in non-attainment areas on adjacent
clean-air areas. New plans to implement PSD requirements for particulate
matter and S02 will be due from the States in early 1979. Until State
plans are developed, the current PSD requirements (40 CFR 52.21) will remain
in effect except for certain new provisions in the amended Act which modify
these regulations effective immediately. These new provisions are those
relating to air quality increments and ceilings, mandatory Class I areas,
and State designation procedures for other than mandatory Class I areas.
For hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
oxides, where an area is designated as attainment or unclassified, only
best available control technology (BACT) under PSD will be required until
EPA promulgates a "definition" of significant deterioration for these
pollutants.
The Act requires that States submit designations to EPA by December 5,
1977. EPA must then promulgate the lists in the Federal Register by
February 3, 1978, with any modifications as necessary. When any modification
to the list is proposed by the Administrator, the affected State will be
notified and provided an opportunity to demonstrate why the proposed modificatio
is inappropriate. EPA will compile all State lists with all modifications
as may be necessary and publish them as required by the Act.
-------
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
The amendments explicitly require plan revisions to prevent significant
deterioration of areas cleaner than required by federal ambient air quality
standards. It establishes three land classifications that are tied to
specific allowable increases in particulate matter and sulfur dioxide over
the baseline concentrations.
Class I increments are set to protect pristine areas, Class II to
allow moderate development, and Class III to permit more extensive growth.
The statute prescribes the following specific increments:
Maximum Allowable Increase (ug/m3)
Class I
Class II
Class III
AGM
5
19
37
TSP
24-Hour
10
37
75
AAM
2
20
40
S02
24-Hour
5
91
182
3-Hour
25
512
700
AGM = Annual geometric mean
AAM = Annual arithmetic mean
No increments are set for pollutants other than particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. However, EPA is directed to propose regulations within two
years for increments or other means to prevent significant air quality
deterioration from nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
photochemical oxidants.
Most land areas are designated Class II and are available to the State
for redesignation to Class I or III after following prescribed procedures.
A State must consult with the federal land manager in redesignating federal
lands, but does not need his concurrence. However, the law establishes as
mandatory Class I areas all international parks, national wilderness areas,
and national memorial parks over 5,000 acres, national parks over 6,000
-------
acres in existence upon enactment and any Class I area established through
EPA redesignation procedures before enactment. The mandatory Class I areas
in Florida are the Everglades National Park and the Bradwell Bay, Saint Marks,
and Okefenokee National Wilderness areas.
The federal land manager must review the air quality related values of
national monuments, primitive areas, national preserves and recreation areas.
Where appropriate, and after consultation with the State, he is to recommend
redesignation to Class I within one year.
A number of areas over 10,000 acres are ineligible for designation to
Class III. These are national monuments, national primitive areas, national
preserves, national wild and scenic rivers, national wildlife refuges, national
seashores, new national parks, new national wilderness areas, and other new
areas in these categories created after enactment.
Twenty-eight (28) categories of major stationary sources with the
potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of any air pollutant are
subject to the rules. Also included are sources with the potential to
emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant.
VISIBILITY PROTECTION
The thrust of the PSD provision is to protect clear air areas from
emissions from new and expanding plants. A critical provision introduced
in the amendments targets the problem of impaired visibility in pristine
areas caused by new and existing sources.
The amendments require the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with federal land managers, to identify within six months mandatory Class I
areas where visibility is an important value needing protection. EPA,
-------
after consultation with the Secretary, has one year to promulgate the list.
The State then must impose best available retrofit technology on major
stationary sources which contribute to the visibility problem. Retrofiting
requirements apply to the 28 major sources identified in the PSD provision,
but only to those sources with the potential to emit 250 tons per year or
more of any pollutant.
The State has considerable authority in determining best available
retrofit technology. Federal guidelines are limited to fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plants with a total generating capacity over 750 megawatts,
-------
THE INTERAGENCy MCHEOLOGICAL PROGRAM
Mr. Benny Keel
In 1945, at the end of World II, Congress began appropriating funds for
the construction of a system of multipurpose dams in river basins through-
out the United States. American archeologists realized that construction
activities, particularly the resultant reservoir impoundments, would
obliterate untold cultural resources unless surveys and excavations were
started immediately. An advisory group known as the Committee for the
Recovery of Archeoloegical Remains, representing the community of scientists
concerned, was formed to counsel Federal agencies participating in these
water resource development programs. Thus the Interagency Archeological
Salvage Program was launched, the original participants being the National
Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution, the Bureau of Reclamation, and
the Corps of Engineers.
From the beginning the National Park Service was the coordinating agency
of the Interagency Archeological Salvage Program. As time passed, the
Service drew upon personnel, facilities, and resources of more than 50
universities, colleges and museums, as well as the Smithsonian Institution,
in pursuing archeological salvage operations in many water control projects,
Park Service participating in this program was based on the Antiquities
Act of 1906 (Public Law 59-209) and the Histoic Sites Act of 1935 (Public
Law 74-292). The Antiquities Act gave the Secretary of the Interior
responsibility for protecting prehistoric and historic ruins, monuments,
and objects situated on most Federal lands. The Secretary has delegated
this responsibilty to the Director of the National Park Service.
In the Historic Sites Act of 1935, Congress declared that "It is a national
policy to preserve to public use historic sites, buildings and objects of
national significance...." The act empowers "the Secretary of the Interior
through the National Park Service" to carry out this policy and authorizes
the Service to conduct surveys, publish studies, and otherwise encourage
the preservation of historic properties not federally owned.
Later, the Reservoir Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-523) gave the Department
of the Interior, and through it the National Park Service, major respon-
sibility for the preservation of archeological data that might be lost
specifically through dam construction. To preserve or recover as much as
possible of the Nation's prehistoric and historic heritage that would be
destroyed by Federal actions, the Archeological and Historic Preservation
Act (Public Law 93-291) was signed into law by the President in 1974. The
new law amends the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 and places responsibility
upon the Secretary of the Interior for coordinating and administering a
nationwide program for the recovery, protection, and preservation of
scientific, prehistoric, and historic data which otherwise would be damaged
-------
-2-
or destroyed as a result of Federal or federally related land modifica-
tion activities. Such activities include, in addition to the dam con-
struction cited in the Reservoir Salvage Act, pipeline and sewer con-
struction, power transmission facility development, airport construction,
and so forth.
Further measures have also been taken to preserve our cultural heritage.
Responsibilties of the Secretaiy of the Interior were increased by the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which pledged Federal assis-
tance to preservation efforts undertaken by State and local governments
and by the private sector. The Act expanded the National Register of
Historic Places and established the Advisory Council on Historic Pre-
servation to advise the President and Congress on programs calculated
to enhance the Nation's efforts in historic preservation. In addition,
the Advisory Council is given the opportunity to comment on the effect
that Federal undertakings might have on National Register properties.
On January 1, 1970, the Congress passed the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190). Its principal purpose was establish a
national policy regarding the environment and to provide for the establish-
ment of a Council on Environmental Quality. Title 1, Section 10(b) states,
"In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the con-
tinuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable
means, consistent with other considerations of national policy to improve
and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the
end that the Nation may... preserve important historic, cultural, and
natural aspects of our national heritage..." Federal agencies were further
directed by Title 1, Section 102(2)(c) to prepare environmental impact
statements for each major Federal action having an effect on the environment,
As a complement to the National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order
11593 was issued in May 1971. Among other things it requires the Secretary
of the Interior to advise other Federal agencies in matters pertaining to
the identification and evaluation of historic propoties located on lands
under their jurisdicitions. Moreover, the Secretary is charged with
developing and diseminiating to Federal, State, and local government
units information concerning methods and techniques for preservation,
restoration, and maintenance of historic properties.
Operating from officers in Washington, B.C., Atlanta, Denver, and San
Francisco, the Interagency Archeological Service Division today includes
the following programs:
-------
-3-
THE ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM
Through this program contracts and cooperative agreements are entered
into with Federal and State agencies and with qualified scientific and
educational institutions for the purpose of implementing data recovery
investigations. It monitors and coordinates all archeological efforts
relating to Federal and federally licensed or assited construction pro-
jects and reports on them annually to the Congress. The program is
funded by annual appropriations and through the transfer of funds from
Federal agencies whose activities come under the purview of the Archeo-
logical and Historic Preservation Act of 1974.
THE ANTIQUITIES ACT PROGRAM
National Park Service responsibilities under the Antiquities Act of
1906 have been redelegated to the Department Consulting Archeologist,
who grants permits for archeological (and paleontological) explora-
tions on most federally owned or controlled lands. He reviews appli-
cations, coordinates them with all appropriate Federal agencies, and
provides professional overview of all archeological research under-
taken under Antiquities Act permits.
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11595 PROGRAM
Executive Order 11593 directs the Secretary of the Interior to pro-
vide general procedural and technical advice and assistance to
Federal and State agencies and to local groups regarding identi-
fication, evaluation, and preservation of cultural resources. To
implement the Executive Order, the National Park Service has appointed
three full-time consultants to carry out the archeological responsi-
bilities of the Department of the Interior; one consultant is assign-
ed to the Interagency Archeological Services field offices listed
herein.
These consultants are authorized to initiate contacts with Federal,
State, and local agencies; to respond to requests for advice; and to
serve as historic preservation policy and procedure generalists.
They explain the Federal historic preservation mandate, discuss and
aid in the analysis of agency problems, and as needed notify appro-
priate technical experts and services within other elements of the
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation.
National Park Service architects and architectural historians are
also available to provide advice to Federal, State, and local agencies
on specific technical preservation problems.
THE OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
was organized within the National Park Service early in 1967 to carry
out more effectively those continuing programs that derive principally
-------
-4-
from the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and to prepare for an increased
responsibility as a result of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966. The office was conceived as the American equivalent of the
historic monuments services functioning in many other countries.
-------
WORKSHOP I FRANK REDMOND
This Workshop primarily dealt with the actual mechanics of environ-
mental impact statement review to include a brief discussion of the
administrative tracting procedures which EPA uses as a Statement
circulates through its various technical support sections; the details
of EPA's examination of a facility's adherence to both new and existing
provisions of public laws, Executive Orders, etc.; and lastly, the
criteria for assigning a rating to a given project. As might be ex-
pected, this last matter fostered some of the greatest interest of the
Workshop because although each lead agency (local, State, Federal, etc.)
has a multiplicity of concerns regarding a given project, one of their
paramount considerations is its preception, environmental and otherwise,
by the various review, permitting and enforcement agencies. In the
case of EPA, an assessment and the subsequent rating is assigned after
the Review Section and technical support branches have made a compre-
hensive evaluation of its environmental advisability. This rating is
based on its impact on the environment and the adequacy of the State-
ment, per se.
The details of the system follow:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION
LO — Lack of Objection
EPA has no objections to the proposed action as described in the draft
impact statement or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.
ER — Environmental Reservations
EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain
aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of
suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked the
originating Federal agency to reassess these impacts.
EU — Environmentally Unsatisfactory
EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its
potentially harmful effect on the environment. Furthermore, the Agency
believes that the potential safeguards which might be utilized may not
adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from this action.
The Agency recommends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further
(including the possibility of no action at all).
-------
Workshop I
ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT
Category 1 — Adequate
The draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environmental
impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives
reasonably available to the project or action.
Category 2 — Insufficient Information
EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not contain suf-
ficient information to assess fully the environmental impact of the
proposed project or action. However, from the information submitted,
the Agency is able to make a preliminary determination of the impact
on the environment. EPA has requested that the originator provide
the information that was not included in the draft statement.
Category 3 — Inadequate
EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not adequately assess
the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that
the statement inadequately analyzes reasonable available alternatives.
The Agency has requested more information and analysis concerning the
potential environmental hazards and has asked that substantial revision
be made to the impact statement.
In order for our responses to meet the requisite time frame, a total
of 10 copies of the Report should be forwarded, viz., 5 copies to
EPA-Washington and 5 copies to the Regional Office in which the project
is located. This may appear to be a rather large number; however, it
allows for a more timely response by circulating the document simul-
taneously through the various technical support branches.
During the last year EPA has focused on a number of difficult issues
relative to impact statement review, e.g., wetlands protection - Obion
Creek, Ky., St. Phillips Island, S.C.; stream alteration - Black River,
N. C., Swift Creek, N. C., and air quality - Interstate 40 and 75, Knox
County, Tenn. , Interstate 85, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Ga,.
-------
WORKSHOP II - Involving Others in Complying with Executive Orders
Moderator - Sheppard N. Moore
Contractors, Third Party - Bob Flanders, Geo-Marine, Inc. Richardson, Texas
States - Sam Williams, Georgia State Clearinghouse, Atlanta, Georgia
Corps of Engineers - Edwin Reppner, Mobile District, Mobile Alabama
Universities - George Bowen, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
Marty Wanielista, Florida Technical University, Orlando, Fla.
Media - Leonard R. Teel, Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Georgia
The concept of involving more people in complying with executive orders
was clearly demonstrated in the recent preparation of a third party EIS
by Geo-Marine, Inc., and Region IV EPA concerning the expansion of Kentucky
Utilities Company's Ghent Station on the Ohio River. The third procedure
allows for the combination of Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS)
and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) procedures by contracting an
independent third party consultant to collect and formulate the complete
EAS/EIS required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) . By employing the third party procedure, the Company and EPA can
actively participate in and review all phases of EAS/EIS preparation.
This allows for the early resolution of design, construction, or operation
of problems of the proposed structure and the inclusion of the agreed-upon
stipulations in the draft EAS/EIS. This document is then in a completed
form to receive general comments of all interested parties.
The selection of the method (third and non-third party) by which NEPA
requirements are fulfilled is made in a preliminary conference between
the Company and EPA. If it is felt that the full EAS and EIS procedure
will be necessary, the third party route is an option the Company has
which can reduce the expenditure of time and work necessary to fulfill
NEPA requirements.
If the third party route is decided upon, a Memorandum of Understanding
between EPA and the Company is drawn up. The following is the Memorandum
of Understanding for the recently completed third party EAS/EIS for
Kentucky Utilities and is presented to illustrate the duties of each party
in the third party procedure;
-------
General Provisions
(1) EPA is ultimately responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements
of NEPA.
(2) The Company will provide the supportive expertise, manpower and technical
capabilities required for preparation of an EAS/EIS.
(3) The Company will retain Geo-Marine, Inc. as a consultant in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the purchase order contract tendered by the
Company to EPA and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", as well as the further pro-
visions of this Memorandum of Understanding as same may be applicable; EPA
approves the selection of Geo-Marine, Inc. (hereinafter "the Consultant"), and
the Company represents that the Consultant does not and shall not have any finan-
cial or economic interest in the planning, the design, the construction, or the
operation of the proposed power plant except as same may be provided in Exhibit
"A".
(4) Both the Company and EPA shall:
(a) Actively participate in, and review all, substantial phases of EAS/
EIS preparation.
(b) Designate a representative to review all EAS/EIS work as it is
developed and completed.
(c) Have their respective representatives attend regular meetings with
Federal, State, regional and local agencies for the purpose of
increasing communication and receiving comments on preparation of
an EAS/EIS.
(d) Insure coordination of effort and exchange of information among
any planning, design, or construction engineers employed by the
Company and the Consultant.
(5) In all instances involving questions as to the content or relevance of any
material (including all data, analyses, and conclusions) in any material pre-
pared by the Consultant, EPA will make the final determination on the inclusion
or deletion of any such material.
(6) All costs incurred in connection with employment of the Consultant or any
other entities participating in preparation of the EAS/EIS under constract with
the Company shall be the sole responsibility of the Company.
Procedures
(1) The Company shall assure that the work of the Consultant shall be performed
in accordance with NEPA, NEPA regulations, any relevant guidelines as they may
be amended from time to time, local and state laws.
(2) The Company shall assure the satisfactory and timely performance and com-
pletion of the Consultant's work.
(3) The Company shall assure that EPA is provided, at a minimum, no less than
two opportunities to review, comment, and make editorial changes on draft chapters
-------
of the EAS/EIS as same are prepared by the Consultant. EPA will provide these
comments in a timely manner, and the Company shall assure incorporation of the
EPA comments into editorial changes prepared by the Consultant to the satisfac-
tion of EPA. Final drafts of any documents will be submitted, as prepared, to
EPA for review and approval.
(4) Any and all work performed by the Consultant pursuant to the preparation
of the EAS/EIS will be submitted directly to the EPA. The Company may receive
copies simultaneously but in n£ case will they be provided the opportunity to
discuss, review, or edit the work prior to submission to the EPA.
(5) EPA, Company, and Consultant will agree on the Plan of Study before pro-
ceeding to prepare EAS/EIS.
(6) The Company shall assure that Consultant provides to EPA access and review
of all procedures and underlying data in connection with contractors developing
any and all reports, including, but not limited to, field reports, subcontractors
reports, interviews with concerned private and public parties whether or not
such information may be reflected in draft or final reports.
(7) It is understood that EPA may, at its option, work and communicate directly
with the Consultant without participation of the Company, provided, however,
EPA will keep Company advised of any communication.
(8) The Company shall assure the full cooperation of the Consultant and any
other Company contractors with respect to organizing and conducting any public
workshops, hearings, meetings, and the like, required by law to foster public'
familiarity and/or participation with respect to the EAS/EIS process.
(9) The Company shall be responsible for the costs of stenographic, clerical,
graphics, layout, printing, and the like, with respect to preparation of the
EAS and, should it be required, the Company shall be solely responsible for the
aforesaid costs in order to provide to EPA fifteen copies of an EIS draft or final
report as may be required and to include one "cameraVeady" copy sufficient for
EPA's reproduction and distribution.
(10) Upon completion of a draft EIS, EPA will be responsible for organizing and
conducting the public hearings required by 40 CFR Part 6. EPA will also be the
recipient of all comments during the draft EIS review and comment period. This
period (45-60 days) will be initiated when the Council on Environmental Quality
publishes the "draft EIS receipt" in the Federal Register.
(11) At the close of the draft EIS review and comment period, EPA will identify
the issues and comments submitted which will require response in the final EIS.
EPA will direct these comments to the company and to the Consultant for prepara-
tion of proposed responses.
(12) Upon completion of any such responses, noted above, EPA will provide same,
as they may be modified by EPA, to the Company and to the Consultant for inclusion
into the final EIS. The Consultant will modify the text of the draft EIS as
directed by EPA.
-------
Termination
(1) Either party to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate this agree-
ment upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. During the inter-
vening 30 days, both parties agree to actively attempt to resolve, in good faith,
any disputes or disagreements.
(2) In the event of termination of this agreement upon completion by the Company
and the Consultant of an EAS, EPA may initiate preparation of any federal EIS.
-------
Through our experience in preparation of the first third party EAS/EIS in
Region IV, advantages to both EPA and the Company have become apparent. These
are as follows:
Advantages to EPA
1. Reduced paperwork
i
The plan of study is prepared jointly and approved at the beginning of EAS/EIS
procedure. This insures that unnecessary work is reduced and that pertinent
information is formulated into the EAS/EIS. The EPA also has control of EAS/EIS
preparation at the early stages so that the document contains descriptive infor-
mation in a concise matter that is suitable for decision makers and interested
parties.
2. Reduced delays
Through consolidation EAS and EIS preparation, delays due to review time and
revisions are reduced. The reduction of delays results in shorter overall pre-
paration time and a more up-to-date document.
3. Objectivity of preparer
The third party contractor is initially nominated by the Company but then goes
through an approval procedure by EPA to insure that the third party contractor
has no financial or economic interest in the planning, the design, the construction,
or the operation of the proposed structure.
Advantages to the Company
1. Savings of time
The most important advantage of the third party procedure is in the saving of
time. By combining the EAS and EIS, delays are reduced thus reducing costs due
to construction delays.
2. Review privilege
The Company is asked to review all substantial phases of EAS/EIS preparation.
This active participation during the whole process enables the Company to correct
-------
Inaccuracies during early stages of preparation and to monitor the progress
of the preparation. Along the way, information can be volunteered by the
Company that can expedite the process.
In conclusion, Geo-Marine, Inc., has been very pleased with the experience
of preparing the first party EIS in Region IV. We feel that in many future
projects it will be a valuable option for both the regulating agency and
the company requiring EIS work.
Edwin Kappner explained that the Corps of Engineers wetland policies and
responsibilities under Section 404 of PL 95-12 Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977, a study developed by the Georgia State Clearinghouse. George Bowen
and Marty Wonielista covered courses and conferences at Universities.
In order to provide substantive comments that relate to specific resources
(State laws, Departmental Rules and Regulations, etc.) on Environmental
Impact Statements, the Georgia State Clearinghouse has published the
Sourcebook of Review Criteria. These criteria are useful for the review
of all types of applications and Environmental Statements. These are over
200 criteria directly related to EIS's. Copies of the book are available
through the Southeastern Federal Regional Council, 2121 Marietta Towers,
Atlanta, Georgia 30323, Attn: Mr. Hal Schimmacle, phone 404-221-4162.
Following presentations the panel answered questions from those in
attendance.
-------
WORKSHOP III
INFORMATION: THE BACKBONE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT
Carolyn W. Mitchell
Region IV Librarian
Moderator
Part I.
E.I.S. RESEARCH: AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES
INFORMATION SOURCES
Information Search Guidelines
EPA Library System
.Carolyn W. Mitchell, Librarian
U.S. EPA, Region IV Library
Atlanta, Ga
(FTS 257-4216; CML 404-881-4216)
DATA BANKS
NEDS
SAROAD.
.Barry Gilbert, Data Coordinator
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
Atlanta, GA
(FTS 257-2864; CML 404-881-2864}
STORET.
.David Hill, U.S. EPA, Region IV
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Athens, GA
(FTS 250-3113; CML 404-546-3113)
COMMERCIAL INFORMATION PRODUCTS
E.I.S,
.Joshua I. Smith, Information
Resources Press
2100 M St., NE, Suite 316
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202-293-2600)
Part II
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND NEPA: A CHECKLIST FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Kenneth W. Prest, Jr., Consultant
Environmental Licensing Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 7151, Pensacola, FL 32504
(904-433-0938)
-------
-------
WORKSHOP III
INFORMATION: THE BACKBONE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT
Carolyn W. Mitchell, Moderator
Part I
E.I.S. Research: Available Information Resources
Several types and areas of information have been brought together
for this workshop, along with a checklist for utilizing information ef-
fectively in the E.I.S. process. Our presentation and resource packet
(see Appendix) represent people, places, publications, services, and data
bases of varying degrees of specialization within the environmental area.
Some resources are free, and some, including ones provided by the federal
government, are fee-based. An attempt has been made to show the variety
and location of these resources.
An information search can be complex and difficult. Basic guidelines
should be considered before embarking on a search in order to avoid frus-
trating, time-comsurning, and inconclusive results. When addressing en-
vironmental issues it is important to remember that the passage of NEPA
in 1969 and the organization of EPA in 1970 mark the beginning of the
nation's focus on this area, therefore sources which pre-date these events
should be used with caution. Secondly, it is important toasksomeone who
knows; that is to begin with an appropriate professional: an information
specialist, librarian, or resource person. Do not rely on clerical help.
It is equally important to communicate to that person what the problem is,
how the information will be used, and in what time frame it is needed.
"Do not re-invent the wheel," is another basic guideline. The events of
1969 and 1970 have also brought about a proliferation of environmental
information sources, therefore it can be assumed that the problem or a
perspective on the problem has in all likelihood been researched before.
-------
It is important to consider: 1. Who would know?
2, Who would care?
3. Who would care enough to publish or package it?
EPA Library System
A good starting place for general environmental information is the EPA
Library System, which includes twenty-seven regional, lab, and headquarters
libraries. The libraries' function is to support EPA's mission, a mission
which embraces anyone with a legitimate information need. Therefore, the
collections and some reference services are available to outside users at no
charge. The Region IV Library i.s part of this network. A depository for Agency
reports, it has a special collection of Southeast environmental publications.
The Library's professional staff can provide the user access to both
primary and secondary sources of information—that is, people as well as
publications.
Environmental Data Banks
More specific sources of information are represented by our speakers.
Barry Gilbert, Data Coordinator, EPA Air Programs Branch, works with NEDS
and SAROAD, two centralized data banks developed and managed by EPA. NEDS
contains engineering data, i.e., annual emissions and operating characteristics
on sources of air pollution throughout the U.S. SAROAD contains ambient air
data collected at monitoring sites throughout the nation. Reasonable requests
for data from these banks are serviced for no charge.
STORET, water data bank counterpart to NEDS and SAROAD, is not a
free service, although access to the system is available to all legitimate
requestors. STORET is a repository for water quality data from over
1
Alden, Todd. Finding Facts Fast. (New York, New York: William
Morrow & Company, 1972) p. 7.
- 2 -
-------
200,000 sampling sites; it provides the user with a variety of tools
to retrieve, summarize, analyze, and display this data. David Hill, Region
IV's Surveillance and Analysis Division in Athens, is responsible for STORET.
A new commercial publication, EIS:Key to Environmental Impact
Statements, is an example of one of the outstanding new environmental
information services which have been generated since the passage of NEPA. EIS,
a subscription, provides a microfiche copy of both draft and final impact
statements, and a well-organized journal of abstracts with geographic, subject,
and agency indexes. Published by Information Resources Press, Washington D.C.,
this service is available in EPA regional and headquarters libraries.
Part II
Checklist For Information Management in the NEPA Process, by Kenneth W. Prest
One of the most frequent criticisms of environmental impact statements
is that they are full of "information", but contain little or no evaluation
or assessment of this information. Kenneth W. Prest, an environmental consultant
with considerable E.I.S. experience, has prepared a checklist for effective
implementation and evaluation in the NEPA process:
STEP I: DEFINING THE ACTION, PROBLEM. OR ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED
1. What, specifically, is the problem or issue to be addressed
or the action to be taken? (This should be written down for greatest
clarification.)
2. What, specifically, is my agency's (section's, department's)
role in the NEPA process?
3. What specific action must I take on the problem?
4. What statutory, administrative, policy or attitudinal limitations
have been placed on defining the problem and on my role in
carrying out my responsibilities?
- 3 -
-------
5. How have similar issues been handled in the past?
6. Should the current problem be approached traditionally or
is a new perspective required?
7. Within what time frame must I act?
8. How will my actions interrelate with those of other sections,
branches, departments, or agencies involved in the same pro-
cess?
9. What can I anticipate to be the end result of the process?
(This can be particularly important since there can be
several means to any end.)
10. What is the extent (significance and magnitude) of public
interest in the problem or issue? (Identifying public in-
terest at this stage is most important in broadening one's
perspective of issues.)
11. What consequences, long term as well as short term, can
reasonably be expected to result from action I take in the
NEPA process? (Consequences should be considered as they
may result both in the private sector and public domain.)
STEP II: ACQUIRING INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE THE PROBLEM
1. What specific information do I need to carry out my responsi-
bilities? (This should include information to satisfy speci-
fic requirements as well as information on the process used
to achieve objectives.)
2. How will the information I produce be used in the overall
NEPA process?
3. If a technological process is involved, do I clearly under-
stand how this process works and interacts with the natural
air, water, and land resources and biological and human
systems supporting it?
4. In developing technical information, how much detail is
needed? What is the minimum level of information I need to
carry out my responsibilities and produce a defensible recom-
mendation?
5. To what extent can I rely on secondary information in lieu
of primary information? Can my actions be justified on a
qualitative basis or must I develop quantitative input also?
6. Can I set priorities on the kind and amount of information
- 4 -
-------
that could be used in my review?
7. Where is the information I need located? Is it available?
(People as well as documents should be the basis for consi-
deration. )
8. Is the information in a readily usable form or will it
require extensive manipulation and interpretation?
9. Can I obtain the information? If so, how?
10. How long will it take to obtain the information? Can I
jusitify extensive researching or other delay in receipt of
specific information?
11. What alternatives are there if I can not obtain the desired
information?
STEP III: EVALUATING INFORMATION TO DETERMINE ITS USEFULNESS
1. Is the information obtained relevant to the problem? (Rele-
vancy can be reviewed in terms of generally accepted basic
principles and as pertinent site- or action-specific require-
ments.)
2. How will the information help resolve the problem or complete
my responsibilities?
3. Is the information obtained valid? If the validity is ques-
tionable, how can this be resolved? Where or to whom can I
go for clarification?
4. Regarding site- or action-specific information, can the in-
formation be applied directly or must its use first be con-
ditioned by assumptions?
5. Are the assumptions used in the evaluation reasonable? Can
they be, (or have they been), factually and logically stated?
Are they documented as generally accepted or must they be
considered unique to the particular situation under review?
6. Under what conditions would the assumptions be invalid?
Might these conditions occur in the situation at hand?
7. What are the effects or consequences of using certain assump-
tions as opposed to others? Can the choice among assumptions
be justified; theoretically, empirically, administratively
(due to policy or law)?
8. Once collected, can the information be reused in other situa-
tions? Is it worth storing for future use?
- 5 -
-------
STEP IV: IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS
1. Considering how the problem was defined and what information
is available to be applied to the problem, what options are
reasonable for solving the problem or carrying out responsi-
bilities?
2. How can the information be most effectively applied?
3. Will selecting one option over another limit future flexi-
bility or actions?
4. Will prevailing influences (i.e., social, legal, attitudinal,
political, limits-of-knowledge) have an effect on the imple^
mentation of the alternative chosen? Will these influences
be the same at the time the final decision is made as they
are now?
5. Is the alternative and the procedure used to select the
alternative consistent with the overall impementation of the
NEPA process?
STEP V: DECIDING THE SPECIFIC COURSE OF ACTION
1. Have I satisfied my specific statutory and/or job related
responsibilities?
2. Is my action defensible? Would I make the same decision a
year from now given the same limits of knowledge, resources,
and circumstances?
3. Have I documented the course of events leading up to my deci-
sion and recommendation?
4. Will my action enhance rather than complicate the NEPA process?
STEP VI: IMPLEMENTING THE CHOSEN COURSE OF ACTION
1. Have I prepared and communicated my position clearly and
effectively? Have I used a form (tables, figures, text)
which best communicates my intent?
2. Have I constructed my position logically and completely so
that the reader will not have to assume my intent, or mis-
construe my meaning?
3. Have I presented reasonable alternatives and recommended the
"best" course of action given the circumstances and limita-
tions of time, manpower, and information?
4. Can I confidently defend my action under scrutiny?
- 6 -
-------
EPILOGUE
The CHECKLIST FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT IN THE NEPA PROCESS has
been prepared as a guide to aid effective implementation of decision-making
as directed by the National Environmental Policy Act. Its value rests not
so much with the specific questions asked, or responses obtained, but as
a road map for a systematic process employed to identify problems, develop
meaningful information, evaluate alternatives, decide a responsible course
of action and implement, knowingly, the decision. As required, the user
should adopt the process to his specific needs.
Information management is a skill which must be practiced. Knowledge
about organizations, systems, management, and human behavior is as important
asspecific technical understanding. Subsequently, it will behoove the
individual involved in the NEPA process to:
1. Generally broaden his skills and knowledge;
2. Begin early to identify information sources and to build
information networks; and
3. Recognize and accept that all decisions must be made within
constraints. Learn how to use these constraints advantageously.
With this approach, working within the NEPA framework should become
more objective, more effective, more productive, and more enjoyable to
all involved.
-------
Environmental Impact Statement Conference
December 7-8 1977
WORKSHOP IV
ENERGY RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
Moderator: C. L. Wakamo, EPA
Participants: Charlie Kaplan, Thermal Analysis, EPA; Randy Mayfield, Air
Programs, EPA; Buck Oven, State of Florida; Wally Walquist,
Department of Interior; Don Mcleod, Don Stinnett, and David
Gengozian, TVA; Ron Ballard, NRC; George Knighton, NRC; Joe
Binder, REA; B. H. Rankin? Warren Zurn, DOE.
The workshop was directed toward gaining an appreciation of what is needed
for new energy source EIS's. Various aspects of power plant siting and in-
teragency cooperation were the major topics covered in the workshop. The
agenda included site certification responsibility from a state perspective,
fish and wildlife impacts from the Dept. of Interior viewpoint, screening
of power plant sites and early siting experiences of TVA.
The evaluation of environmental technical specifications for nuclear power
plants was reviewed by NCR, highlighting the impact of NEPA and FWPCA
amendments of 1972. Review of the last two years experience in implemen-
tation of NRC-EPA second memorandum of understanding regarding respective
responsibilities under NEPA and FWPCA was presented by NRC. The experience
that both agencies have gained operating under the agreement should be
beneficial in implementation of the proposed CEQ regulations on procedural
provisions of NEPA (6/9/78 Part II). Discussion of other proposed lead
agency agreements under consideration was discussed by REA. The workshop
session ended after highlights on the coal conversion program was presented
by Department of Energy representatives.
The following three papers give a representative sampling of the workshop
activity dealing with energy related environmental impact statements.
-------
TVA'S POWER PLANT SITING PROGRAM
DONALD S. STINNETT, TVA
INTRODUCTION
The TVA power plant siting program has developed from TVA's activities
Involving the supplying of electric power to the 201-county TVA power serv-
ice area (illustrated in figure 1),* and out of its involvement with a
broad range of regional development activities. The program is dynamic
and responds to the changing conditions in the fields of energy production
and regional development. From the early 1950's to the mid-1960"s, for
example, TVA's power plant siting program was primarily geared toward the
Identification and investigation of locations for coal-fired facilities.
Later, in the mid- to late 1970's, TVA's power plant siting activities ex-
panded to include nuclear as well as coal-fired facilities. With the ad-
vent of each new energy-producing technology, criteria for considering
suitable and desirable locations for new facilities are developed. These
physical criteria, along with regulatory guidelines and statutes, effectively
govern the siting of new power plants.
Due to the constantly changing institutional requirements and improved
energy-producing technologies, the processes associated with siting a power
plant today are not what they were two years ago and probably will not be
the same two years hence. Therefore, working from the basic premise that
there are no perfect power plant sites, in that some impacts will be evident
at any site, and that new power facilities will be needed in the future to
assure that energy supplies keep pace with projected use, we can see that an
effective and efficient power plant siting program, continually evolving to
meet changing conditions, is not only desirable but a necessity.
THE BASIC AIMS
It has been TVA's aim in developing its power plant siting program to
assure that siting studies are comprehensive, thorough, effective, and effi-
cient, as well as sensitive to the demands of changing technology and regula-
tory limitations. These factors have been generally incorporated into three
program goals.
Conduct Thorough Site Investigations. Throughout the investigative
process, TVA solicits broad-based information concerning the many
factors associated with site suitability determinations. Inter-
disciplinary reviews emphasize and assure that the full scope and
range of pertinent issues are developed in site assessments.
*A11 figures are attached at the end of this report.
-------
- 2 -
Promote Coordination with Federal, State, and Local Agencies. As a
regional resource development agency, TVA recognizes the importance
of information exchanges and the mutual usefulness of coordination
and cooperation in development of the region's resources. In this
regard, TVA wants to further develop the spirit of cooperation in
Issues surrounding the Tennessee Valley region's energy future, par-
ticularly with regard to power facility siting.
Constantly Strive for Improvement. In developing an investigative
program as comprehensive as that required for power plant siting, the
Issues often become complex and demand rigorous study. As with any
system, there is the potential for improvement in program processes
and methodologies. Improvement of the overall process is the constant
driving force behind the program and should result in benefits for all
of those involved.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The TVA site study program is structured around two separate and distinct
processes—the inventory siting process and the project siting process. The
inventory siting process involves long-term, ongoing studies that are not
geared to any specific power plant. Its purpose is to review large geographic
areas and to identify, investigate, and select sites believed to be suitable
for future power facilities. Sites believed to be suitable and desirable for
future facilities may be acquired and placed in an inventory status until
such time that a specific project is designated for the site. At present,
TVA has two sites in its inventory—Saltillo and Murphy Hill (figure 2).
Saltillo is located in southwestern Tennessee along the Tennessee River, just
north of Pickwick Landing Dam. Murphy Hill is located in northwestern Alabama
on the Tennessee River, east of Guntersville Dam.
The project siting process, on the other hand, is geared toward short-term
assessments of alternative candidate locations for a specifically designated
project. This process works concurrently with the inventory program and to-
gether they play integral parts in TVA's overall energy planning and develop-
ment program.
In planning for a power facility, many factors must be considered and
many inputs from a varying array of Federal, state, and local agencies and
organizations, as well as private citizens, must ultimately be included. The
coordination and review of these inputs understandably takes a considerable
amount of time and can potentially impact many project schedules. One of TVA's
major concerns, therefore, is the recognition of major siting issues as early
1n the site study process as possible so that any concerns held by various
Individuals and interest groups may be addressed as appropriate. This should
effectively remove many issues from the critical path of a project and facili-
tate cooperative planning, coordination, and allow for greater flexibility in
decision making.
-------
- 3 -
TVA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
To facilitate understanding of TVA's siting program it is important
to Identify the basic organizational structure established within the
agency to handle this function. The siting program, because of its inter-
disciplinary nature, receives inputs from almost every division within TVA.
An organizational chart depicting those divisions which play major roles
1n the power plant siting process is illustrated by figure 3. The tasks of
each organization are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.
The Division of Environmental Planning conducts environmental studies
to determine the potential environmental impacts that might occur from site
development. The studies include assessments of aquatic biota, air and
water quality, and radiological hygiene.
The. Division, of Water Management conducts a wide range of studies which
include geologic, geophysical, hydrologic, hydrodynamic, and thermodynamic
analyses of the site areas, in addition to archaeological investigations.
The Office of Engineering Design and Construction conducts and coordi-
nates engineering studies and designanalyses to assess the engineering
feasibility of potential thermal power plant sites. It develops preliminary
project layouts and estimates of development costs.
The Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development conducts
necessary site-related ecological investigations and assessments. It pro-
vides technical assistance required for impact assessments on forest, fish,
wildlife, and related natural and recreation resources. It describes the
location and nature of historical, scenic, cultural, or natural resources.
The Division of Navigation Development and Regional Studies coordinates
the development of data by interested offices and divisions required for an
assessment of the land use, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of
sites.
The Office of Agricultural and Chemical Development conducts assessments
to determine the agricultural potentials at each site. It interviews farmers,
and provides the technical expertise required to determine the cropping
systems, yields, and overall productivity of an area. It provides information
concerning the agricultural value of potential sites and describes potential
agricultural impacts. ;
Other Offices and Divisions also assist in the review of possible sites,
as appropriate, and provide input concerning the site's overall suitability.
The assessments and various studies that are conducted by the TVA divisions
are usually of a technical nature and are geared to each division's areas of
expertise. The findings, however, are integrated so that an overall weighing
and balancing of the pertinent characteristics at each power plant site, in-
cluding the engineering requirements, environmental features, and socioeconomic
factors, etc., can be made.
-------
- 4 -
The Office of Power (POWER) coordinates and directs all activities re-
garding power plant siting.TOWER, in conjunction with the coordinated
Input received from the other supporting divisions prepares the recommenda-
tions for the addition of power plant sites to TVA's power plant site in-
ventory and for the preferred locations of future project sites.
State Input is Important - An important source of information relating
to potential power plant sites is the input generated by various state and
local agencies and organizations.
Ideally, this state agency/TVA interface should occur at early stages in
the power plant siting prpcess and thus can be mutually beneficial in several
ways. For instance, it provides state agencies with the opportunity to keep
abreast of TVA's power plant siting .activities and to articulate early in
the process state interest and concerns; state input can augment TVA's internal
Investigations of potentially suitable sites by adding to the information
base; cooperative studies and reviews can facilitate the overall planning
process in keeping with each agency's responsibilities to the public.
THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES
The two siting processes previously discussed (inventory and project
siting) are functionally broken-down into four phases of investigative study
(figure 4). Each phase is designed to progressively screen areas in order
to Identify potentially suitable power plant sites. Although the site screen-
Ing categories remain basically the same, the criteria used for the site
evaluations becomes increasingly specific and demanding with each phase of '-'.
Investigation.
In general, the .first three phases of the siting process are geared to
the development of a data base and the performance of various assessments
necessary to determine site suitability and are the basic phases associated
with obtaining inventory sites. The fourth phase places emphasis on either
Inventory management or pre-project planning.
Working Through the Site-Screening Process
Phase I - The phase I site-screening process is initiated with the selec-
tion of a general region of interest within which there is the likelihood of
Identifying potentially suitable sites. The studies initiated are designed
to Identify a specific area of interest which exhibits a desirable combination
of resource characteristics for power plant siting. Characteristically, areas
of Interest exhibit an adequate supply of water, relatively level terrain,
stable seismicity, and compatible land uses, etc.
Within the areas of interest, potential site areas (figure 5) appearing
to exhibit more suitable characteristics for power plant development are iden-
tified. Screening criteria for potential site area identification generally
Include the following:
-------
- 5 -
a. Engineering characteristics - foundation conditions, site configura-
tion, other physical features.
b. Transportation routes - accessibility by rail, barge, and highway.
c. Hydrologic conditions - water availability for plant operation.
d0 Meterological conditions - wind speeds and directions, temperatures,
etc.
e. Environmental resources - terrestrial and aquatic ecology.
f. Recreation, scenic, and historical resources.
g. Land use compatibilities - existing and projected land uses.
Interdisciplinary reviews of the sites identified are conducted with those
sites considered to be the most likely candidates, based on the preliminary
assessments, moving to a phase II analysis.
Phase II - In phase II, the potential site areas identified are studied
in greater detail to further assess their suitability as power plant sites.
The studies performed are directed toward confirmation of information gathered
in phase I and specific review of explicitly identified potential site areas.
Coordination with state agencies is typically initiated during this phase.
The sites that appear to be the more favorable after phase II assessments are
considered candidate sites (figure 6) and move into phase III studies.
Phase III - During phase III investigations candidate sites are evaluated
to ascertain which locations appear to offer the greatest potential for power
plant siting. The evaluation is based on a balanced approach of considering
engineering, environmental, economic, social, and cultural features. Phase III
investigations require access to the site area in order to gain specific in-
formation for site assessments. Access privileges to the site area are ob-
tained by TVA through an easement or right of entry grant from property owners.
Once these rights have been obtained, specific onsite studies and analyses are
Initiated. These studies are designed to investigate and define in some de-
tail the suitability of each site area for power plant siting. The nature of
the onsite studies vary depending on the type of capacity being considered.
Typically,, the studies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the follow-
ing:
a. Detailed engineering studies including core drillings, geophysical
testing, soil sampling, etc.
b. Alternative access considerations.
e. Flooding, streamflow, and water quality studies.
-------
- 6 -
d. Atmospheric data collection.
e. Terrestrial and aquatic ecology resource assessments.
f. Recreational, scenic, historical, and archaeological surveys.
g. Land use surveys and other factors pertinent to the construction
and operation of a potential power facility.
With the completion of phase III studies, sites believed to be favorable
for site development may be acquired. Just before or immediately following
acquisition, a site moves into the fourth phase of investigation.
Phase IV - The phase IV investigations are divided into two associated
aspects—inventory site management and pre-project planning.
In the inventory site management aspect of phase IV, studies are con-
ducted to gather specific information required for licensing and regulatory
procedures, or to support early site review and approval. Inventory sites
are also monitored for any changes on or near the site that could possibly
affect future site suitability or require special assessments.
The pre-project planning aspect of phase IV includes the planning and
assessment activity required for" a specific project. This could involve ths
evaluation of alternative inventory sites or, in some circumstances, the con-
sideration of non-inventory sites which have been previously identified and
investigated.
TVA/STATE COORDINATION
There are several areas in which state input could be effective, and we
would like to explore any avenues that would improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the coordination process. However, based on past discussions
and practices, and review of the investigative process, we believe that the
most effective time for state review and input is when a potential site area
Is Identified. At that point, which is phase II of the process, specific
site areas can be identified along with a description of the screening criteria
utilized in their identification. At this point information can be distributed
for review and comment to all agencies involved in the review of power plant
siting Issues. We believe, however, that it might be beneficial to develop
more fully some informal lines of communication in the form of informal meet-
Ings between state and TVA staffs or other means believed to be mutually be.ie™
flcial to facilitate this review.
The avenues of approach are potentially numerous and open to be explored,
Our Interest and concern is to develop the means of effectively soliciting
and incorporating the comments and issues identified through the site investi-
gation and. review process and work toward any early resolution of potential
-------
- 7 -
conflicts that may be of significance. As the study process develops and
more specific information is gathered, followup reviews and discussions con-
cerning status of investigations of future project planning, etc., may prove
to be beneficial.
SUMMARY
TVA, in its review of potential locations for future power facilities,
utilizes information from many varied sources, including Federal, state,
and local agencies. We anticipate that the need for these inputs will con-
tinue in the future and will probably expand beyond the present scope. To
facilitate the development of a broader, more workable interface with appro-
priate state and local agencies, we believe a basic understanding of TVA's
site selection process is not only desirable but essential. In an effort
to promote this understanding, and as a basis for discussions of the process
and improved TVA/state coordination possibilities, we have prepared this
short informational summary which describes the TVA site study and selection
program.
TVA's 4-phased siting process is designed to encourage early input of
Information and identification of significant issues. The emphasis 1s on
early because the more complete and effective the coordination in early phases
of the investigations, the more-effective and efficient the entire program.
Therefore, it is essential that early-on coordination and cooperation with
state agencies and other organizations in the site investigation process be
initiated and maintained.
-------
n t-1 5 * 01
?.•SgB^RS
S5e-e5'L??«
^E||S2|SS
8l!!.rvff$B.*
.3
5 1 S-. 1
H- rr i 5 -
Of ^ *1
r7 R
^/^r ^_ ^>
-------
-------
02
CQ
K
H
fe
O
25
O
t— I
H
<
SJ
i— i
S5
<
O
K
O
t»
BS
e
M
£
S
h
O
Q
BS
O
«
04
w w
a! <3
Hg
fc <
° i
W j
o 3
M •<
fe M
o z
w
o
•••••M
J
ENVIRONMENTS
,r;iH*liB»B
ICAL SERVICES
a
Ed
S
o
5 «.
w
>- 0
EH J-l
OS >
S «
s s
OS
OH
O
2
03
•<
O
03
CH
FINANCE
J
H
2;
Q
00
PS
H
(X
>
-J
1
OFFICE OF
TRIBUTARY AREA
DEVELOPMENT
JRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
< 3
fc, g
O IM
•j U
S a
S °
b. Q
0 2
<
M £
W t
^ g
g e
% S
o 5
1 i
i i
e
E OF
NG DESIGN
TRUCTION
SSI
s i s
3 g
g <
i
g s
g e
M
i
tOBISTRY,
FI8HEBIES AMD
WIUJLIKB
DEVELOPMENT
SVELOPMENT
a p
B ' J
1 S
O w
1 S
a! GI
< Q £ 00 |_
£2 * 2 e 5
! ^ S z fe 1
: — 31 S *• *
g|l|S
*» S •* S 3
**a|a
:igs|^
: C 3 «*• S 3E
i S = 2 s 1
' » SS g Z
;<|«- S s
. a» S o S a
an
S
00
M
«
1
0
g
§S
Is,
H I
il
* s
1
tPFfpgtoria&NT
LAND BETWEEN
THE LAKES
DERATIONS
J
o
^H
S
H
a
^^
;1
•1
S5
O
H-l
fl
CJ
a
as
z
o
o
"• 'Y'>;:"A
«-ff^ " ' a'""£fh
V -'»'*• *
•-:- ' . /il
O
a s
«
g
O SB
< H
S SB
SB «
5'
M O
O O
•* 2
>• f-
is
>. a a.
O CO CQ
« z a
»• 2 S
CO CO <
O O CO
H M o
< M ~
a a «
a i- <;
o o >
•< as E2
s g s
s « >
g * s
w o o
5 as •<
-------
PHAS
GENERIC ST.
POTENTIA
rgM
2
jjj HH b^
M ^^
H W 1 1
WGO
W0
«fl
I
'T3
° w
i >
co r/3
H
>
(/)
Si
1
(/)
m
r
m
O
H
M
^—
5
m
0)
en
-------
3
|
M
«n
CO
O
O
CO
H
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (ETS)
RONALD L. BALLARD, NRC
It is reasonable to assume that most of us attending this workshop have
been directly affected in one way or another by the strong environmental
movement that characterized the first half of this decsde. The volume of
environmental legislation that has been enacted during this period has
impacted not only private industry, but also has had a significant effect
on Federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing these
statutes. Mot only did the statutes place demands on the technical capa-
bilities of the Federal agencies; a number of them created situations of
overlapping regulatory responsibilities which resulted in duplicative and,
at times, conflicting regulations.
A case in point, which is relevant to this discussion, is the passage in
1969 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the subsequent.
passage in 1972 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
(FWPCA). Both of these statutes had similar objectives, but used different
means to accomplish them. NEPA is basically a policy act, incorporating
the principles of balancing environmental costs and benefits of proposed
activities and consideration of alternatives to assure that, on balance,
a reasonable decision is reached. The FWPCA has a specific objective of
minimizing the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters and a long-term
goal of eliminating pollutant discharges. Thus, we have a situation where
two statutes are concerned with environmental protection and require regu-
latory attention; yet they differ in methods for achieving their desired
goals.
NRC's approach under NEPA for factoring environmental considerations into
our licensing process has been to identify areas of potential concern by
way of environmental impact assessments and to impose license conditions
in the form of environmental technical specifications to assure satisfactory
performance. This was a convenient extension of the procedures that were
already developed to control radiological releases. In view of our limited
understanding of the non-radiological interactions of power plants with
biological systems, the early license conditions were designed not only to
regulate pollutant discharges but to verify that effects predicted in the
environmental statements were in fact valid.
In a subsequent' development, the Environmental Protection Agency has estab-
lished a national system of permits to regulate the discharge of water-borne
pollutants. In view of the similar objectives of the two agencies, NRC has
worked closely with EPA in the development of procedures that encourage
close interagency coordination of environmental reviews, and thus provide
a means for minimizing duplicative enforcement activities.
-------
- 2 -
A good (teal has been learned regarding the environmental problems asso-
ciated with power plant operation in the years since NEPA was enacted
into law. The environmental monitoring programs at operating plants have
provided useful information that permits us to reconsider our procedures
and revise them to reflect the knowledge that has been gained. We have
found, for example, that thermal pollution is a more manageable problem
than first thought, and that mathematical modeling of heated water dis-
charges has advanced to the state where more confidence can be placed on
predicted environmental effects. We are more confident that power plant
effects on primary producers, such as phytoplankton, are of less concern
than originally feared. The new information, in conjunction with coopera-
tive procedures established with EPA, provides us with a basis for review-
ing and modifying our methods for regulating power plants.
Our analysis of the ETS programs indicates that non-radiological areas
suitable for revision can be placed into three general categories. The
first category deals with the need for standardization. There are about
64 licensed nuclear plants in operation, most with ETS which are essentially
customized to specific plant-site conditions. These ETS include constraints
on plant operation in the form of limiting conditions of operation, detailed
environmental monitoring programs, and administrative procedures which are
unique to each facility. The variations in requirements from plant to
plant result in differing interpretations and occasionally introduce con-
fusion in the management and enforcement of the programs. We are, therefore,
attempting to apply the experience gained from the ongoing ETS programs to
standardize the format and content of the ETS for future power plants. An
in-house task group has been organized and is drafting standardized ETS for
two power plants that are currently under review. These plants were selected
primarily on the basis of widely differing design and operating characteristics
We are working with the applicant's staff on the final phases of one case and
the results are promising.
The second category of changes is related to the first, and can be classi-
fied as procedural or administrative modifications. Because of the detailed
nature of the ETS, situations frequently arise in which changes are warranted.
However, ETS changes also require a license amendment; a formal legal process
which may not always be warranted if only rnoo'est changes are involved. This
problem should, of course, be alleviated somewhat by the standardization pro-
cess mentioned earlier. A more positive solution is to find ways to reduce
the need for license amendments and to find improved ways to make the changes
that are needed. This is being accomplished by transferring a great deal of
monitoring detail from the ETS to a separate document and by authorizing the
licensee to make certain changes to the monitoring programs without prior
NRC approval. A precedent for this process is already contained in our regu-
lations regarding quality assurance programs, and the concept should also be
applicable to environmental monitoring programs.
-------
- 3 -
The third general area in need of attention involves duplication of regu-
latory enforcement. I mentioned earlier that a good deal of overlap ex-
isted between the environmental technical specifications issued by NRC and
the discharge permits issued by the EPA or permitting states. Procedures
for coordinating our joint review functions with EPA have been established
by means of a Memorandum of Understanding, thus alleviating the problem of
conflicting regulations. We plan to carry this concept a step further in
our ETS program by'avoiding the inclusion of pollutant discharge limitations
which are also included in an applicant's discharge permit.
Perhaps a brief comparison of the new ETS format with the existing format
will assist in illustrating the overall effects of the changes. First, a
glossary of terms which frequently appear in ETS is currently being developed.
Although this may appear at first to be a trivial matter, different inter-
pretation of technical terms frequently results in enforcement problems.
Occasions will almost certainly arise when special definitions will be re-
quired for specific sites and these occasions will be accommodated. However,
every attempt will be made to minimize the need for special definitions.
With regard to "Limiting Conditions of Operation," we expect to delete from
our ETS numerical limits for any parameter identified in the Environmental
Statement which is also regulated by means of a Section 402 NPDES permit.
However, in view of the fact that the parameter was identified in NRC's re-
view as an issue of concern under NEPA, a monitoring requirement will gener-
ally be included in the ETS. We expect that the NRC monitoring requirement
will be consistent with the permit requirement, and will result in no addi-
tional burden to the licensee. Furthermore, if a water quality parameter of
NRC concern is not controlled by an applicant's Section 402 NPDES permit,
NRC will retain the option of including a condition for that parameter in
the license.
As I mentioned earlier, it has often been necessary to amend an operating
license to take into account minor changes to environmental monitoring pro-
grams. Future ETS will contain only critical parameters needed to identify
and establish a program, and the implementation details will be contained
in a separate document. While requests for changes of ETS must be processed
as they have in the past, separation of the technical details from the ETS
reduces the need for license amendments and permits greater flexibility in
the management of the monitoring programs.
Perhaps the greatest change from past practice is contained in the adminis-
trative section of the ETS format. The scope of the separate procedures
document is described in this section, as well as a description of associated
modifications and reporting requirements. Provision is made in this section
for initial approval by NRC and for subsequent management of the programs;
including modifications, by the licensee. Also included are references to
the requirements of PL 92-500, including certifications, NPDES permits, and
requirements for notifying NRC of any changes to such permits.
-------
- 4 -
A description of just how this process is being applied to an ongoing case
review will serve to illustrate the points I have made. The original
draft ETS for the facility contained five limiting conditions of opera-
tion, dealing with temperature and chemical discharge limits. Close coordi-
nation with EPA and the State in their development of the applicant's NPDES
permit resulted in a discharge permit which satisfactorily treated the
issues raised in the NRC's environmental impact statement. This successful
coordination permits the current draft ETS to contain no numerical con-
straints for water quality parameters. There are, hoy/ever, reporting re-
quirements for these parameters, which are deemed necessary to satisfy our
responsibilities under NEPA. In this particular case, the reporting re-
quirements place no different burden on the applicant than the permit al-
ready requires, thus helping to resolve the problem of conflicting regula-
tions. It should be pointed out, though, that a situation could arise
where a discharge permit may not regulate a parameter that has been identi-
fied in the NRC environmental assessment as of potential concern. Our
present stance is that a numerical water quality constraint can be included
as an NRC license condition if such a constraint is not identified in the
discharge permit.
To continue with my illustration, application of the standardized format
has resulted in a significant reduction of technical detail. The monitoring
program descriptions are abbreviated and incorporate only the requirements
deemed critical to assure satisfactory resolution of the issue. The appli-
cant has submitted, instead, a detailed procedures document which is currently
under review by NRC staff. Subsequent to NRC staff approval of the proce-
dures, the applicant will be responsible for managing the programs and will
be authorized to modify the programs, provided that the original intent of
the monitoring requirement is not compromised.
There are two general conditions in the administrative section of the ETS
which serve to place constraints on licensee changes to monitoring programs.
The first condition identifies four monitoring parameters which are of such
importance that changes must be reported to the NRC within a specified time
after their implementation. These parameters are sampling location, fre-
quency, gear, and replication. The second condition focuses on the need
for maintaining consistency with previously approved procedures. This con-
dition requires that any program modifications be supported by appropriate
comparative sampling studies which allow direct comparisons with previously
collected data. The intent of these conditions is to assure that data
generated by the monitoring programs meet a statistically valid level of
quality.
In order for the procedures I have described to work efficiently, we need
the cooperation of the nuclear utility industry. A situation that frequently
arises is the reporting of operating parameters to the NRC with numerical
-------
values which differ from those submitted in conjunction with a discharge
permit application. We recognize, of course, that design modifications
are sometimes necessary and desirable after submittal of initial plans.
However, in order for the NRC to adopt a discharge permit limit or monitor-
ing program, the numerical basis must be consistent with tnat evaluated in
its environmental statement. If the permit value differs, it is necessary
for NRC to obtain new input from the applicant and reevaluate impacts.
Thus, close attention on the part of the industry to keeping all relevant
agencies informed of modifications affecting the environment will maximize
the benefits to be gained by the new process.
The steps that have been described here are believed to be responsive to
needs for improving the efficiency of the licensing process and for re-
ducing duplication in the enforcement of regulations. We are only in the
formative stages of accommodating the procedures to actual operating con-
ditions, and some revisions may still be necessary. However, it should be
kept in mind that the responsibilities placed on Federal agencies under
NEPA are different than those set forth in the Water Quality Act. While
some duplication is probably unavoidable as the statutes are now written,
a cooperative effort on the part of the nuclear industry will assist us in
developing more efficient procedures which are also responsive to the man-
dates of both Acts.
-------
z
o
H
O
£
o
uj
fi.
O
i
S
O
UJ
I-
O
•
c
o
"Zj
'c
•+Z
o
Q
•a
c
v>
CU
3
cu
U
o
DL
CU
CO
co
a
a>
CO
o
c
CU
+"•
CO
o
a
o
U
c
"O CU
C
CU
3
"O
CU
O
O
aZ
.£.
to •— •
E -M
S .E
cn'ca
O +3
Ql c
'£ T3
f* ^L f
CO 'd
JC 0
0 S
Sal
CU
CU
JC
^
CO
b
o
^-
a.'
UJ
*£..
C3)
C
"4-1
0)
CU
Q
>»
ja
V'
C
O
s
.i
LJ
^.j
c
CU
u_
CO
UJ
N
CNl
CO
LU
U]
~o
c
i
CU
Standardized
JC
15
CO
V)
LU
il Changes
l\l
l_
3
CU
O
o
t_
a.
•M
0)
Q
C35
C
L.
Remove Mon
CO*
CU
O)
co
C
CO
5E
.a
Document to
«=^
o
0)
c
(U
_o
Provide for L
.d
§
"CO
o
a
<
O
oc
Zi
IL.
O
(X
o
C
E
0)
0
*c
UJ
'£•
CO'
U
J
_J
TJ
'o
^
<^
4J
f_
cu
a.
UJ
Q
tc
^^
"S
!H
>
J**
QL
C*
Cft
-------
2
a
cnta
LL,
MR*
u
a
O
H
K
115
yj
slew Requirements
£.
CO
Jj
T***
c
O
i_
'5
cr
Oi
DC
o:
.E
CO
'x
LU
co
O
"X3
o
(U
CO
CO
LU
Q}
4-* 4_j
ro CO
a. c
ird Definitions for all
ary) Except for Certa;
c Items
"D to ~
C O °
55 §.
CO *— CO
T3
03
CL
O
~r?
>
Q
C 'co
o3 ra
o ro
Is
QJ .>
CO c
0) —
*"* C
CO 0
c
o
"•p
"E
O)
Q
^
t.^
._
CO
LU
Numerical Limits of
NPDES Permit.
52 .E
-5 g
Q "co
<2
OJ
,1
H--
LU
0 CO
1.5
'-J TJ
s£
•— '+*
(ii *"*
« Q. -rj
a) —
M—
O
C .— i
O co
'*"* O
'-a o
c: _j
0^
CD O
C '42
'4^ CO
'E a
.E CL
CN
II mi •
CO
•M C -Q
-§ '^.c
<£. '~ +3
Monitoring Details. ,
irdized Program Desci
ritical Parameters Re
-•
• $ •§ vJ CO
JtJ c •*- m
Q co ^ .E
CO
E
ro
0)
0
!••
Q.
CT
.E
o
.ti
'E
o
S
"S
"l"l—
^3
0)
Q
O)
.E
o
'E
«=2
"c^
+^
C
0)
c
o
c
UJ
CO
co
•f-"1 C
D. O
0 £
t3 Q.
c o3
0 +2 5
L.
O a?
*«" a
co o
c 8
§ w
E "0
£.§
Ij
a -j
CC H-
"O
nz .52
AJ tl
Q co
o
"O
CO
15
'o
0)
a.
CO
^
-------
p
*
O T)
CD CD
3-
__..
o' r+
cu w
r-f CU
fa
to
2
O
^r
H
CD
DJ
f_f
CD
D.
cr <» TJ
^ -1 CD
'p
DO p
>3
i 5'
SL "a
<• ca
«* 3
3- r*
SO
CD ID
XI EJ.
E. o
CD
a
CD
*
•JJ
CD
•o
o
*"*\
Et
3*
CO
O)
«>
CD
a.
QJ
3
Q.
m
X
c?
to
^"'
CD
cn co
to' 53'
3 D
3 D-
'dized Report Requirernen
ant Reduction in Prompt
3 M
(D -<"
•Q
O
M
Ol
> >
0
7 i.
o ^
CD S
O rt^
^ *"*
cc <'
CD
CD
13
CD
Q>
"U
"^
§
cfl'
5'
3
CO
^ DO r
S- S. co
— . to 3
3 CD in
in CD
e Manages Approved Progi
Them W/O Prior NRC Ap
Established Guidelines.
"0 o)
3 3
< VI
" "
rn
H
CO
CO
CD
O
o'
3
m
X
in'
ct.
5'
CO
_
CP
n
c
— \
3
CD
3
in
•z.
ew Requirements
m
o
2
c3
Bi3
m
O
5* «» r^*
"«• BV» Diem
~\am
G i
m ^*
O 2
P"
CO
m
O
H
n*i
O
-------
IMPLEMENTING THE SECOND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN NRC-EPA
GEORGE KNIGHTON, NRC
Introduction
For the purpose of effectively implementing NEPA and the FWPCA consistent
with both acts, the public interest, the NRC and EPA entered into the
Second Memorandum of Understanding. This agreement clarifies the respec-
tive roles of NRC and EPA in the decision-making process concerning the
licensing of nuclear power stations and other facilities requiring NRC
license or permit. The agreement was effective on January 30, 1976, and
serves as the legal basis for NRC decision-making concerning licensing
matters covered by NEPA and Section 511 of the FWPCA.
Approximately two years have passed since the agreement went into effect,
and thus this EPA workshop is an appropriate time to reflect on our ex-
periences under the agreement to date.
Implementation
Since the "Memorandum of Understanding" recognizes NRC as the "Lead Agency"
in preparing environmental statements for nuclear power plants and certain
other activities, it will obviate the need for EPA to prepare separate en-
vironmental statements for such facilities. EPA has thus agreed to exercise
its best efforts to issue complete Section 402 discharge permits as far as
possible in advance of the planned date of authorization by NRC of any
commencement of construction. As "Lead Agency" the NRC Environmental Project
Manager takes the lead in communicating to the applicant those minimum NRC
and EPA requirements for information to facilitate their respective environ-
mental evaluations. Requests for additional information, as needed in speci-
fic situations may be directed to the applicant by EPA, with coordination
with NRC to the maximum extent possible.
NRC Environmental Project Managers or EPA Project Officers are required to
taka the following actions on a case by case basis:
1. Notify the sister agency project officer and the State environmental
authorities, when they become aware of plans of an applicant to con-
struct a nuclear power plant or other facility covered by the "Memorandum."
This is important to work with applicant to develop an acceptable program
to monitor water quality aspects required for detailed assessments of
aquatic biota and intake structure "best technology available."
2. EPA designates Regional Project Officer. Authority to coordinate EPA re-
view in a timely fashion without impacting environmental review schedules.
-------
- 2 -
3. EPA shall inform applicant of EPA data requirements on water quality
and biota. On 316(A) and (B) exemption we anticipate EPA will invoke
the need for 18-24 months requirement for data prior to environmental
report submittal on a case by case basis in order to accommodate
those plants currently in the planning stage or under review by NRC.
4. NRC, EPM in consultation with EPA will notify applicant of the ad-
visability of applying for a Section 401 water quality certification
from the State as soon as he is aware of applicant plans.
5. NRC, EPM requested applicant to submit copies of ER to EPA Project
Officer and State water quality permit agency at the time he tenders
the ER to NRC.
6. NRC, EPM takes lead in communications with applicant from acceptance
review stage award.
A) EPA can request information direct prior coordination to avoid
duplication.
B) Copies of correspondence to sister agencies and permit state.
7. NRC, EPM will inform and afford opportunity to take part in site visits,
technical conferences and other meetings having a bearing on water
quality or related issues. Also afford opportunity to observe at meet-
ings with applicants and parties to NRC proceedings where environmental
issues related to other areas of EPA jurisdiction are discussed. Parti-
cipation should be pre-arranged with NRC, EPM.
8. NRC, EPM and EPA Project Officer identify major areas of concern with
regard to water quality. Subsequently, they should keep each other in-
formed of any differences in position and of any new information which
becomes available. If any issues remain unresolved both positions will
be stated in the DES.
9. NRC, EPM shall apprise the EPA Project Officer of the anticipated sched-
ule and provide opportunity to explore schedule flexibilities before
NRC moves to final schedule approval. EPA is notified of the final
schedule. .Scope of EPA input will be worked out on a case by case basis
between NRC, EPM and EPA'Project Officer.
10. During DES comment period, EPA will review and comment pursuant to
Section -309 of Clean Air Act on the DES prepared by the NRC staff.
11. EPA's 309 comments will be accurately reflected in the FES together
with NRC staff responses where appropriate.
-------
- 3 -
12. NRC, EPM supplies copies of all comments on the DES to EPA as soon
as they are received. EPA participates with NRC in responding to
those comments upon water quality matters and other areas of EPA juris-
diction and related expertise.
Scnedule:
The typical schedule for the NRC/EPA review under the Second Memorandum
would be as follows:
18-24 months prior to docket NRC/EPA/State meeting.
EPA/NRC utility interface - applicant advised of data needs.
1 month before docket - Acceptance Review.
4) 3 1/2 months after docket - DES issued - Draft NPDES.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 1/2 months - comment period & DNPDES & Notice of Hearing.
1 month after comments received and DNPDES issued - EPA Hearing.
8 months after docket - FES issued.
9 months after docket - NRC Environmental Hearing.
Notice of Final NPDES permit.
20 days for opportunity to request EPA Adjudicatory Hearing.
30 day waiting period for EPA Adjudicatory Hearing Decision.
EPA Adjudicatory Hearing.
Final NPDES permit.
13 1/2-months NRC - Limited Work Authorization.
15) NRC Construction Permit.
Experience;
Since the Second Memorandum went into effect January 30, 1976, NRC and EPA
have implemented it in the following cases:
o/t Omaha Public Power District - Ft. Calhoun 2 (p/s)
c/t Tennessee Valley Authority - Phipps Bend 1 & 2
c/t Public Service Company of Oklahoma - Black Fox 1 & 2
c/t Tennessee Valley Authority - Yellow Creek 1 & 2
o/t New England Power Company - New England 1 & 2
c/t Gulf States Utilities - Blue Hills 1 & 2
Other cases where cooperation has been instigated or carried out to varying
degrees (some are Permittee State cases)
New Hampshire Public Service Company - Seabrook
Public Service of Indiana - Marble Hill
Houston Lighting and Power - Aliens Creek (React)
Carolina Power and Light Company - Brunswick
Consolidated Edison - Indian Point 2
Power Authority of the State of New York - Greene County
-------
- 4 -
Results
Experience to date has had a very high degree of success. Such performance
has been due to the cooperative attitude of EPA/NRC and permit state agen-
cies in recognizing that the parallel performance of the NEPA, FWPCA and
even State reviews are very much to the advantage of the agencies, the pub-
lic and the applicant. The coordination between agencies to date has gen-
erally extended the previous NRC schedule, however, the benefits derived
for the applicant and the public - considering the sequential evaluation
of environmental impacts, new information effecting previous agency decisions
and potential of opposing positions by the various concerned agencies cer-
tainly appears to justify the coordination.
State MOll's
Virginia is the first State to enter into an agreement under the FWPCA with
NRC. That agreement became effective on October 26, 1977. -The Virginia
agreement is very similar to the NRC/EPA MOU except that it applies only to
Nuclear Power Plants rather than all nuclear facilities, and it provides for
NRC and the Virginia State Water Control Board to explore means by which
parts of HRC's environmental statements could be prepared jointly or coopera-
tively. Also, the wording of the Virginia agreement is much simpler than that
of the Second NRC/EPA Memorandum.
Earlier this week, we received a pre-signed proposed agreement from the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control that contains
the essential provisions of the NRC/EPA Memorandum and covers all! nuclear
facilities rather than just nuclear power plants. That agreement is currently
undergoing staff review by NRC and hopefully, will be concluded in the near
future.
Negotiations with the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and
the Environment and the Departments of Environmental Conservation and Public
Service are well underway. As presently proposed, there will be a basic
Memorandum of Understanding with the appropriate New York agencies that pro-
vides for cooperation in all matters of concurrent jurisdiction under NEPA
rather than just water quality matters. This Memorandum will be supplemented
by separate ancillary agreements which provide for the State to prepare
portions of environmental impact statements for NRC under mutually acceptable
guidelines. Currently two such agreements have been drafted and are under-
going staff review. These agreements would provide for appropriate New York
agencies to prepare the water quality and need for power portions of NRC's
environmental statements for nuclear power plants. It is anticipated that
similar agreements in other areas such as air quality, terrestial ecology,
land use, esthetics, etc. may be negotiated in the future.
-------
- 5 -
Also, New York and NRC in August completed a "Joint Working Paper for the
Preparation of Environmental Reports for Generating Facilities in New York
State." This document is intended for use by any New York State utility
for the preparation of a single environmental report which will satisfy
the environmental requirements of both the State and NRC.
Negotiations for agreements are well underway with Georgia and Michigan
and are in various early stages of development with California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon and Washington. It is our intent to open
negotiations with additional EPA permitting States depending upon State
interest and staff availability.
Even in the absence of formal agreements, considerable cooperation and
coordination exists between the States and NRC. Joint NRC/State hearings
which are considered on a case-by-case basis provide a good example.
In the case of Douglas Point, for example, joint environmental hearings be-
tween the State of Maryland and NRC were held in July-August, 1976 for the
proposed Douglas Point Nuclear Power Plant to be located adjacent to the
Potomac River about 30 miles below Washington, D. C. in Charles County,
Maryland. The joint hearing involved close coordination between the State
and NRC in technical review and development of the joint hearing protocol.
The hearing was a success as attested to by both the NRC and State agencies
in terms of function, Federal/State relations, and avoidance of duplicative
effort.
Another instance is that of Greene County. In this case, both NRC and the
New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment have
substantial areas of concurrent jurisdiction in the licensing of the proposed
facility. On November 9, 1976, the Commission and the State of New York
agreed to hold a joint hearing on matters of common interest and concurrent
jurisdiction on the proposed Greene County Nuclear Power Plant. The eviden-
tiary hearing on environmental matters began on January 4, 1977 before a
joint hearing board made up of the ASLB and two hearing officials from the
New York State Board of Electric Generating Siting and the Environment, with
participation by the parties admitted in both proceedings.
We believe that joint hearings will bring considerable benefits both to the
Federal and Sta.te licensing process, and avoid costly duplication of effort
and lead to the development of better and more complete records, and conse-
quently, to more informed decisions. Joint hearings should also enhance
the opportunity for effective public participation in the decisional pro-
cesses of both agencies.
The degree of difficulty in fulfilling the Memorandum varies with the type
of cooling system (i.e., cooling tower, cooling lake or pond and once-through
-------
- 6 -
cooling and site location). The cooperation of the agencies on the Phipps
Bend, Black Fox, Yellow Creek, and the use of cooling towers certainly per-
mitted timely environmental reviews. Ft. Calhoun, Blue Hills, New England
and Aliens Creek take considerably more coordination as a result of once-
through condenser cooling on rivers, ocean or cooling lakes requiring sig-
nificantly more effort for aquatic assessment and best available technology
assessment for the.intake.
There has been some difficulty experienced as a result of independent con-
sultation by the agencies involved with Department of Interior concerning
rare and endangered species. Such duplication has resulted in delays due
to conflicting positions by Department of Interior. Such problems can be
solved by agency coordination prior to requesting Department of Interior
position.
There has been difficulty on "old sources" in the NRC operating license
stage environmental review or changes in NPDES conditions on operating
plants. Although the Second Memorandum covers "new sources" because of
EPA's responsibility to prepare an environmental statement, extending the
cooperative interchange of change of status, new information coordination
prior to actions taken by either agency or the appropriate state could be
extremely helpful.
It should be emphasized that it is desirable for EPA to assign a single
coordinating point for each case as NRC does in its assignment of an EPM.
This certainly is not intended to reduce participation by additional repre-
sentatives.
Conclusion:
We believe the grades earned by all participants under the Second Memorandum
of Understanding should be high. This is due to the cooperative attitude of
the agencies in improving the process to the benefit of the public, applicant
and their respective agencies.
-------
Appendix 1
WHERE TO FIND EIS-RELATED MATERIALS
DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES FOR GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS:
Public and university libraries (217 in the Southeast) compose a
nation-wide system that serves as storehouse for all Federal govern-
ment publications, as well as many state and local documents.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOOKSTORES:
Located throughout the U.S., the bookstores provide a wide selection
of GPO materials for purchase, as well as ordering information for
all Federal publications.
INFORMATION CENTERS AT MAJOR RESEARCH LIBRARIES
The centers provide thorough searches of the literature on a given
topic, usually for a fee. One such center is the Georgia Tech
Information Exhange Center.
LIBRARIES OF AGENCIES OR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT:
Although quality of the collections may vary, many agencies or
organizations involved with a project may provide additional infor-
mation. Most Federal agencies do have a library system, as with
EPA, TVA, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey.
UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE LIBRARIES:
The reference librarians at large academic libraries, especially
those located near the area affected by the EIS, are available to
explain their library's collection. Especially good for socio-economic
information.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONAL OFFICE LIBRARIES:
The regional libraries hold depository collections of EPA reports,
a substantial collection of state and local documents relating to
environmental problems, especially within their regions, as well as
an assemblage of supportive books and journals.
-------
Appendix 2
E.I.S. RELATED PUBLICATIONS AND SERVICES
CHEMICAL REGULATIONS REPORT (BNA):
Weekly review of activities affecting chemical manufacturers and
users, including coverage of Federal and state laws and regulations
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASSOCIATIONS (Gale Research Co.):
Detailed information including location, size, staff, objectives, and
telephone numbers of commercial, scientific, engineering, agricultural,
governmental, legal, military, and other organizations. Includes
alphabetical and key word indices.
ENERGY USERS REPORT (BNA):
Weekly report covering energy policy, technology, and supply. Includes
coverage of energy laws and regulations, energy statistics, and a direc-
tory of energy-related departments and organizations.
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER (BNA):
Weekly review of pollution control and related environmental management
problems, including coverage of Federal and state environmental legis-
lation, laws, and regulations.
EPA REPORTS BIBLIOGRAPHY (NTIS):
Abstracts and indices of EPA reports. Provides ordering information
for purchasing reports through NTIS.
FINDING FACTS FAST, by Alden Todd (William Morrow Co., 1972):
Text explains research methodology, library use, ideas for outside-
the-library investigation to help researchers find out what they want
to know immediately.
GOVERNMENT REPORTS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INDEX (NTIS):
Biweekly summary and index of government research. Indexes cummulate
annually.
KEY TO E.I.S. (Information Resources Press):
Monthly index and abstracts to E.I.S., including access by subject,
Agencies involved, geographic areas affected, laws and court deci-
sions relating to E.I.S. The Impact Statements are also available
on microfiche.
OBERS PROJECTIONS (U.S. Water Resources Council):
Five volume set including historical and projected data for economic
activity in the U.S. Organized by states, water resources regions,
and Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Areas. Includes one volume
summary and explanation of methodology.
-------
PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS:
Several journals of professional organizations contain information
relevant to E.I.S. research, such as 102 MONITOR (CEQ), JOURNAL OF
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION, JOURNAL OF WATER POLLUTION CON-
TROL FEDERATION.
PROJECTIONS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN (STATE). SERIES E, POPULATION (Corps or Engineers)
Documents providing historical and projected demographic and economic
data for each of the nine states in the Southeast. One volume summary
of projections for the Southeastern states is also available.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAMS AND REGULATIONS (Environmental Information Center):
Collection of laws, rules, and regulations of environmental impor-
tance for all 50 states. (Available at EPA Region IV Library in
microfiche.)
COMPUTERIZED LITERATURE SEARCHES
NTISearch (NTIS):
Individual computer searches of entire NTIS Bibliographic Data file
covering Federally sponsored research projects since 1964. Fees for
searches begin at $100.
AIR POLLUTION TECHNOLOGICAL INFORMATION CENTER (APTIC) SEARCHES (EPA):
Literatrue searches of air pollution control articles through the EPA
Library at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Free to EPA
personnel, current contractors and grantees of EPA when endorsed by
their EPA project officer, state and local governmental agencies, non-
profit environmental and citizens groups.
ABSTRACTS
ENERGY INDEX (EIC):
Annual guide to literature in energy. Includes sections covering
year's events, key legislation, conferences, books, films, and
statistics relating to energy.
ENVIRONMENT INDEX (EIC):
Annual index covering 21 subject catagories of environmental concern.
Indexes journals, newspapers, government documents, and conferences.
Includes listing of pollution control officials and a chronology of
the year's events of environmental importance.
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS (Water Resources 0-ffice, Interior Dept.):
Semi-monthly publication abstracting current and earlier monographs,
journals, reports, and other publications dealing with water-related
aspects of the sciences, engineering, and the law. Also includes
coverage of conservation, control, use and management of water.
-------
Appendix 3
REGION IV LIBRARY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Librarian: Carolyn Mitchell, MLS
Assistant Librarian: Patricia Rosencranz, MLS
The Region IV Library was established in May, 1973. Some
of the material incorporated into the collection came from
the pre-EPA offices of the Public Health Service and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
The collection presently consists of 1500, books, 10,000
cataloged documents, 270 journal and newsletter subscriptions,
and 100,000 reports on microfiche.
The subject areas of the collection are water quality, water
supply, wastewater treatment, air pollution, solid waste management,
noise pollution, toxic substances and hazardous materials, land
use, environmental law, and Southeastern U.S. ecology.
Special collections include EPA reports, Air Pollution
Technical Information Center (APTIC) reports, Environmental
Impact Statements on microfiche, state environmental laws
and regulations on microfiche, and Federal Women's Program
materials.
The Library provides the Region IV staff with reference,
circulation, inter!ibrary loan and current awareness services.
Assistance is also provided to the general public.
-------
Appendix 4
£• - 07 5: i> C3 $
ist proble
l impac
O
li
ro o
ii ra x -• cn
E CD
s they encountered in ab
statements. Following a
3 - 5
ac
om
=- CD ^
D
O CQ
""" a>
fa
•o 5
~ Q.
CD
> ~
co 0
•a 3
01 o
— 3
O C.
II
as
!.:§.
^ ^
? °
CD cn
[n S
CO O
•D 3
2.3
CD ~
01 5
2. o
§ o
01
arc orgnm
arc lo nbsl
ub
cd
rnct
5- g
&I
§ 1
<" I
£1
a 01
f =r
o 3
II
= - = = 5L o
antive
relati
nnd inde
pa
ion
a
TO
fD 3-
VO
2 S1
3 ">
3 O
g §
O
t< 3
01 (V
O CO
o
S
rt n
m
01
-s v
re n
~ to
rt 01
ce cn
-------
Appendix 5
°. s
— B
3" "
nstitutionalize appropriate arrangements whereby the three steps
3 EIS process — information collection, analysis, and decision
CO
CO
(3 f
«
ET
CD
and local governments.
CEQ should encourage federal agencies to establish cooperative
:ments with state and local governments and regional agencies
gco
£§
n co
rnments to use efficient techniques that would integrate EISS into
roject planning documents and provide technical assistance to
.a!
CD Q.
3 for state environmental policy acts to eliminate duplicative
al and state environmental policy act requirements.
CEO should encourage federal agencies to assist state and local
to
CEO should prepare model legislation to establish minimum stan-
?!
ining lead agency or joint agency responsibilities for EIS prepara-
0) CJ
5; t/>
CD NJ in
n • c
re coordination among federal agencies in EIS preparation.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) should work with the
;ted federal agencies to establish interagency agreement for de-
a _.
CD •
To the extent permitted by law, the President should require all
ral agencies to develop consistent regulations and definitions and
r^Scro.~ — co =• -a ooo:^ = c/>=-(/)fl<— ~r>— '
«§£3i*i.tS-?5oSiSlSgSffii!
s space in the June 1977 issue of EIS was given to a guest editon'a!
lling with ideas tor improving environmental impact statements
s). The topics discussed included the need for greater uniformity
1 consistency among agencies in determining when and how impact
ements should be prepared, the elimination of redundancies in
iact statements, streamlining of the intra-agency review process,
mentation ol environmental assessments, preceding or backing up
act slnlements wild "families" ol reports covering discreet technical
is so ns to fncilitnle Ihe technical review process, nnd development
encral criteria or guidelines lor stale or local authorities in order to
unatc the need for detailed lederal agency participation in every
ironmental action.
i many respects, the suggestions advanced in our guest editorial
jllel in purpose and kind the recommendations advanced in the
rim report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork dealing with
ironmental impact statements (February 1977). The report contains
•ecommendations. Backed up by detailed analyses and justifica-
s, these recommendations address themselves not only to the
inution of the paperwork burdens of impact statement preparation .
also to their consistency, responsiveness to NEPA, redundancies
m and among statements, and olher mailers of significant import.
14 recommendations (somewhat abbreviated) are as follows:
i
COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK:
Report on Environmental Impact Statements
B
smmm
5
£>
n
-3
caw
"9
^3
m
y*
tsam
££%
W9
^j
CD
printed with permission of copyright owner
PI
H
to
Key to Environmental Impact Statements, Vo!
*— •
M
»
n
o
T3
>*!
'right, 1977, Information Resources Press
additional copies, we were informed that printing was being dela;
the unavailability of biodegradable paper. Absit omen.
^.
CO
o
cr
•<
compresses into 60 pages suggested solutions to most of the
problems which plague the EIS process. It is well worth re
Unfortunately, availability may pose some problems. When we asl
» Q. 3
Q. -• ?
:t 3 »
O CO O
Consistent with the basic mandate of the commission, the
CO
T3
o
—
9. CEO should amend its guidelines to permit circulation of a
mary" instead of a complete EIS document, when the only purpose
distribution is to meet disclosure requirements of NEPA
10. CEQ should amend its guidelines to recognize and promote
an "integrated environmental assessment/environmental impact
ment" process
11. CEQ should encourage federal agencies to use areawic
instead of preparing site-specific EISS for related actions
12. CEQ should encourage development and use of environ
resource inventories to avoid duplication of base-line data for
These should consolidate and coordinate data on, for exampi
ology, hydrology, botany, and zoology by federal region
13. CEQ should provide guidance to support a concept of
accepted environmental resource inventories by reference in
instead of including all inventory information.
14. CEQ should assume responsibility for identifying, evaluatir
disseminating efficiency techniques to comply with NEPA.
" So .-SI * .g £-'
Co ~ (O m 3 m H.CD — rr
3 [03 CDcnST C/) CDo 3~-3
Q. u> CO i • SL w i 2. CD ?
•g.
CO
3
erf
o
0
3_
ro"
3_
a. incorporates all elements of an EIS, in compliance with app
federal agency regulations, and
b involves federal agency participation in and certification
2. o
d>
5 2
CD CD
equivalent of an EIS if it
OD
n
m
O
w
3-
O
C
Q.
CO
CD
3
Q.
uy
(O
c
5.
CD_
5
CD
(A
O
CD
(Q
CO
3.
CO
•o
o
CD'
o
•o
CO
3
CO
vt
5
CD
license, or loan to state or local governments.
7. CEQ should work with federal agencies to recognize and p
integration of the draft EISS into initial project planning docu
especially when the major federal action is a grant, lease, |
1I|
3 a o
-- y n
mental requirements.
requirements of NEPA and other environmental statutes to plan
public works project. If possible, the handbook should also incoi
provisions for permit, lease, and license applicants to meet e
3-65
- o 5
o tu "°
I CD CO
making — are coordinated among the various levels of gove
affected by tne proposed project.
6. CEQ, in cooperation with the Federal Regional Councils,
prepare for each region an environmental handbook which rela
CD ". 3
W rT 3
5F_ §
CD Q. 2.
o
~J
-------
Streamlining
the EIS process
Preparing environmental impact statements is often a
costly, time-consuming, duplicative task. A noted
information systems expert suggests ways to improve it
What have the forthcoming 1980
Winter Olympic Games, electric power
stations, and human heart pacemakers in
common? Pursuant to the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (NEPA), they, like
many other projects and installations,
require an environmental impact state-
ment (EIS). "A heart pacemaker, too?"
someone asks incredulously. "Yes, if it is
Plutonium powered," you answer. "Now
where would I find an EIS on heart pace-
makers?" is the next question you hear.
The same question is asked for many
other EISs.
Where, indeed? Until very recently,
EISs were essentially "fugitive literature."
Abstracts and indexes did not exist in
reference works such as Chemical Ab-
stracts, Engineering Index, Environmental
Abstracts, or similar publications. "EISs
were not 'findable' like, say, works on
bridge building. Once in a while an odd
one could turn up, but you can't count on
it," Saul Herner, president of Herner and
Company (Washington, D.C.), told
ES&T.
Meets a need
Thus, it was evident that a real need for
a way to locate EISs existed, and Herner
resolved to meet it. The effort began in
1975 and came to fruition with the first
issue in January of this year of EIS: Key to
Environmental Impact Statements, a
monthly publication. Basically, EIS pro-
vides indexes to subjects involved in the
statements it covers, geographical areas
affected by proposed actions, and the
agency/organization responsible for each
statement. Next, abstracts, in readily un-
derstandable language, of draft and final
EISs are presented, along with descriptive
material and a location guide. There is
also a monthly editorial, highlighting the
contents of each EIS issue, and dis-
cussing topical environmental items.
Appendix 6
EISs from before this year are not left
out of Herner's activities. A division. In-
formation Resources Press (IRP), which
publishes EIS, is preparing abstracts of all
of the approximately 4500 final EISs that
appeared since NEPA (1969-1976).
These will be available in bound volumes,
microfiche, and computer-searchable
tapes. As of press time, IRP had about 30
commitments for this past EIS service, as
well as approximately 600 subscriptions
to EIS. The 1969-1976 compilation ser-
vice will cost a client approximately
$10 000; annual subscriptions to EIS are
$200. Of the 100 employees at Herner, 10
work full time on the compilation service
and EIS.
Saul Herner gave ES&T am example of
the benefit that easy location of an EIS
might confer. Suppose there is a power
plant in northern New Mexico, for which
an EIS was written. Now, plans are made
to build another one in a nearby geo-
graphically and climatologically similar
area of southern Colorado. If an assess-
ment and EIS must be done from
"scratch," one must figure on the efforts
and expenses of some 3-6 man-months
of well-paid experts' work; indeed, that is
what usually happens.
However, if the New Mexico EIS can be
found without a wild agency-to-agency
goosechase, some of the information
there could well ease and shorten the task
of preparing the Colorado EIS. For ex-
ample, some of the required data for
Colorado could be included by reference
to like information in the New Mexico
statement. This is one of the aims that EIS
and the service for past EISs is out to ac-
complish.
Improved control
Streamlining the "findability" and re-
trievability of EISs is one of IRP's goals;
another is to improve control over the EIS
process and over the assessment process
leading to statement preparation. At
present, "control really begins after an EIS
952 Environmental Science & Technology
-------
is issued, at which time it is examined by
EPA for completeness and adherence to
NEPA requirements, and is announced by
the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) in the Federal Register," Herner
told ES&T.
Herner believes that EIS management
control and public awareness should start
at the onset of environmental assessment
activity. Thus, for example, if an impact
is very negative, that fact should soon be
apparent, and the project could be
dropped before much money is spent on
an EIS and other items. Also, the EIS
preparation process could be standard-
ized and improved, especially with re-
spect to cost and time, and elimination of
much redundancy of similar statements.
Saul Herner
"More effective controls are needed"
Herner suggests tighter control at the
assessment, preparation, and an-
nouncement steps, with reasonable al-
lowances for differences between
projects or products and agency re-
quirements. Indeed, IRP is planning to
work with a U.S. government agency to
find ways of establishing and optimizing
this control.
The requirement for preparing as-
sessments and EISs is here to stay. But
the job can be made more standard,
simpler, less time-consuming, less costly,
and less duplicative.
Oh yes, about the curious EIS on heart
pacemakers—it is described in EIS,
February 1977, p 57. Or, for more detail,
the whole statement, issued July 1976
(Final), can be found at the Office of Nu-
clear Material Safety and Safeguards,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash-
ington, D.C., now a part of the new De-
partment of Energy. It also can be ob-
tained from IRP, which sells microfiche
and paper copies of all impact statements
it covers. JJ
Reprinted from ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 11, Page 952. October 1977
Copyright 1977 by the American Chemical Society and reprinted by permission of the copyright owner
-------
Appendix 7
Barry Gilbert, Data Coordinator
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
(FTS 257-2864; CML 404-881-2864)
STATE AIR QUALITY DATA CONTACTS
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
Mr. Ken Barrett, Air Quality Section, Division of Air
Pollution Control, Alabama Air Pollution Control Com-
mission, 645 South McDonouqh Street, Montgomery, Alabama
36104 (205-834-6570)
Mr. Dick Arbes, Air Quality Section, Florida Department
of Environmental Regulations, 2562 Executive Center
Circle, East, Montgomery Building, Tallahassee, Florida
32301 (904-844-8145)
Mr. William D. Estes, Chief, Air Quality Evaluation
Section, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, 535 Mi lam Avenue,
Atlanta, Georgia 30315 (404-656-4997)
Mr. Larry Teriot, Chief, Air Quality, West Frankfort
Office Complex, U.S. 127 South, Frankfort, Kentucky
40601 (502-564-6798
Mr. D. D. Jones, Chief, Field Monitoring Section,
Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi Air
& Water Pollution Control Commission, Post Office
Box 827, Jackson, Mississippi 39205
(601-354-2550)
Mr. Glen Ross, Air Qualtiy Section, North Carolina
Department of Natural & Economic Resources, Post
Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919-758-4740)
Mr. Gene Slice, Bureau of Air Quality Control, South
Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803-758-5581)
Mr. Robert Foster, Chief, Technical Services, Tennessee
Department of Public Health, 256 Capitol Hill Building,
301 Seventh Avenue, North, Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615-741-3651)
-------
REGION IV STATE CONTACTS - AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY
For Information on obtaining available state reports, please contact the
appropriate person in each state.
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
Dick McNider
Division of Air Pollution Control Commission, 645
South McDonough Street, Montgomery, AL 36104
Bob lacampo
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2562 Executive Circle East, Montgomery
Building, Tallahassee, FL 32301
Jim Mull ins
Air Protection Branch, Environmental Protection
Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
270 Washington Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
Edd Frazier
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, West Frankfort Office
Complex, U.S. 127, S, Frankfort, KY 40601
Earl Lemaster
Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi
Air and Water Pollution Control Commission,
P.O. Box 827, Jackson, MS 39205
Tom Allen
Air Quality Section, North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources, P.O. Box
27687, Jackson, MS 39205
Jerry Chalmers
Bureau of Air Quality Control, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Protection
2600 Bull St., Columbia, SC 29201
Stan Lodl
Tennessee Department of Public Health
265 Capitol Hill Building, 301 Seventh
Ave., N, Nashville, TN 37219
-------
Appendix 8
storet
EPA's
Computerized
Water Quality
Data Base
the right
answer
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Washington, D. C.
-------
storet
provides
water
quality data
on the
right
parameters
Some 1800 unique water quality parameters are defined within «toi«t Ap-
proximately 80% of the 40 million individual observations available
within the system pertain to approximately 200 of these pa-
rameters which are grouped into the general cate-
gories shown in the table to the right A single
observation represents a measurement
of a single parameter at a spe-
cific location, or station,
at a specific point
in time.
.5
.3
.a
9
at the
right
stations
storet contains data on samples taken from
more than 200,000 unique collection points
located on essentially all of the Nation's rivers,
lakes, streams, and other waterways. The shadings
of the map reflect the relative concentrations of
sampling and monitoring stations. The blow-up
of the Saginaw River Basin shows its drainage
area and the specific locations of sampling points.
-------
A river basin is the area drained by a single river
and its tributaries. A water quality management
basin plan is a management document that iden-
tifies me water quality problems of a particular
basin, or portion of a basin, and sets forth an
effective remedial program to alleviate those
problems. Overall basin needs and priorities are
assessed, actions scheduled, and the necessary
coordination with concerned organizations
planned.
basin
planning
The needs and priorities are based largely upon
water quality data and the analysis of this data.
For example, fecal coliform bacteria is a common
indicator of pollution problems in areas affected
by major municipal/industrial activity. A plot of
coliform along a stretch of a river can quickly
ascertain the presence of a bacterial source and
the extent of a pollution problem.
The development of an effective planning proc-
ess is crucial to effective water quality manage-
ment. This is particularly true for river basin
planning as required under various sections of
PL 92-500. River basin plans are primarily the
responsibility of the states, and the law delineates
the rather extensive amount of information that
must be provided.
research
In order to achieve our national objective of
having water that is clean enough both for recre-
ational activity and for the protection of fish and
wildlife, numerous research and development
efforts have been initiated to acquire a thorough
understanding of the complex and variable bio-
logical systems that characterize our waterways.
Research tells us what a specific level of a specific
pollutant does to humans, animals, and crops. It
establishes thresholds at which we might expect
adverse effects from environmental pollutants,
alone or in combination. (And from these
thresholds, criteria for water quality standards can
be established.) It provides the basic scientific
knowledge we need to safeguard the public health
and to balance the benefits of a specific product
against its environmental risks
A representative effort is that of the EPA Grosse
lie Laboratory's Research Program to improve the
water quality of the Great Lakes. This Lab is in-
volved with a number of other agencies in devel-
oping the scientific information needed to assess
the effectiveness of implemented programs on
Great Lakes water quality, to form the basis for
needed control actions, and to develop the scien-
tific information needed to support the Canadian/
U. S Agreement for the Great Lakes. Over a
dozen U. S. and Canadian agencies, universities,
and joint commissions are participating in this
extensive program launched in 1972.
Since this is an on-going, international program
involving both water quality management and
research, it is essential that all data gathered on the
water quality of the Great Lakes be readily accessi-
ble by all investigators. Accordingly, all participants
are required to enter all collected data into storet,
thereby greatly expediting the use and analysis of
the information through sharing of data. This sig-
nificant, multi-organizational research program not
only illustrates the value of storet in research-
oriented endeavors, but also it demonstrates how
the use of an accepted central system can foster
cooperation among a group of organizations
sharing common interests.
CHLOROPHYLL A IN LAKE ONTARIO
TWO PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
-------
monitoring
& surveillance
The data in storet originates from samples taken
as part of individual monitoring programs con-
ducted by the states and other organizations
Several objectives of these monitonng efforts are
to identify and assess quantitatively the magnitude
of existing and potential water pollution problems,
and to detect any trends or changes over a period
of time Reports such as the trend plots shown
here, which show presence of phosphates and
ammonia as a function of time, vividly point out
where problems do and do not exist
npdes
permit
program
Far-reaching goals were established by PL 92-500:
By 1983, water clean enough for swimming,
boating, and protection of fish, shellfish, and wild-
life; and by 1985, no discharges whatsoever of
pollutants into the Nation's waters! To achieve
these ambitious but essential goals, the law estab-
lished a national permit program, known as
NPDES-the National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System, to control the discharge of pol-
lutants into any waterway. This program is the
mechanism for insuring that effluent limits are
met, that the necessary technology is applied, and
that all requirements of the 1972 law for con-
trolling discharges and complying with water
quality standards are met on schedule. Permits
are to be granted to individual dischargers only
after they show that their effluents will not con-
taminate a waterway in excess of established water
quality standards, or will not lower its existing
quality.
The law allows polluters time to improve facil-
ities, but provides thai corrective programs must
meet the "best practicable" and "best available"
standards of water pollution control technology
by 1977 and 1983 respectively.
EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS REPORT
-------
progress
reporting
Under Section 305(b) of PL 92-500, states are
required to submit annual reports to EPA on
sources of pollution —their nature, extent, recom-
mendations for control, and the cost of these
controls (An excerpt from the State of Michigan's
305(b) report is shown below ) As practices be-
come more sophisticated, these reports should
reflect the effects of these sources on the pollu-
tion of groundwaters, and provide an inventory of
wells which can be used to determine ground-
water quality within a state's jurisdiction
A new activated sewage treatment plant was built
on Fountain Creek below Colorado Springs in
late 1972. The data in storct collected prior and
subsequent to the implementation of the new
plant were compared The number of violations
for dissolved oxygen had dropped from 53% to
7%, for dissolved solids from 59% to 33%, for
BOD from 85% to 73%, and for fecal coliform
from 89% to 58% Similar improvement occurred
and was demonstrated when a sewage treatment
plant was built in the Fargo, North Dakota area
These examples show the applicability of using
the data in storct to demonstrate progress either
from an over-all point of view or from the view-
point of a single effort
100.
30,
STN • 500046
THE i/Aff OF fffST FIT SHOUS IMPROVING UATE/f DU
WER TWE — AS MEASURES Sr THE HATER QUALITY 1HOEX
TIME OF DBSERVA1ION
Associated with specific water uses are the water
quality standards which must be met in order for
the water to be used for its intended purposes.
consistent with the 1983 goals of water quality
Once standards have been established by states
in accordance with national criteria, it is necessary
to monitor the effect of water pollution abatement
and control activities relative to those criteria A
number of storet report programs can be used,
such as the ones pictured below, to track the
progress of water quality improvement efforts
WITH
VIOLATIONS UST
VIOLATIONS
SUMMARY
-------
toxic
substances
Although many substances are potentially toxic to
aquatic life and other organisms when present in
sufficient concentration for a sufficient period of
time, the term toxic substances generally refers to
those substances which are dangerous even in
very low concentration Consequently, the 1977
arc! 1983 deadlines for limiting pollutant dis-
charges do not apply in the cases of these deadly
substances, such as mercury, cadmium, and
toxaphene Steps required to meet standards
established for toxic substances must be taken
quickly to protect the public health and welfare
To this end. EPA is empowered to restrain dis-
charges of any pollutants which present an im-
minent and substantial endangerment to the
health or livelihood of the public
All toxic substances foi which water quality anal-
yses have been performed are defined within
storet, and the system can easily accommodate
the inclusion of additional substances upon their
discovery Reports such as the one shown below
(from a Council on Environmental Quality report)
can be readily obtained from storet data to dem-
onstrate the presence or absence of toxic sub-
stances in any body of water for which data
are available
in summary,
the right
answer
These pages have shown a number of uses made.
of storet, and its wealth of water quality data, by
a vanety of governmental agencies and other
organizations To further underscore the role that
storet can play to help you fulfill your water
quality assessment and management objectives,
consider the following additional answers that
storet can provide
Help evaluate cost-effectiveness of previous-
ly implemented water quality programs
Help promote water quality programs by
substantiating the effectiveness of other
similar programs
Help justify budget requests for water
quality programs
Help cut sampling costs by coordinating
efforts with other organizations
Provide a repository for your data collec-
tion efforts
Help identify where monitoring efforts are
needed, thereby determining where funds
need to be allocated
Help design overall programs based upon
the successes of others
Help complete water quality management
basin plans
Help prepare fact sheets required by
permit applications
• Detect changes in pollutants that could
change existing permits
How can storet help you?
-------
collected
and used
by the right
people
— State Agencies
— Cities and Counties
— Interstate Commissions
— Water Quality Managers
— Environmental Planners
— Sanitary Engineers
- EPA Regional Offices
— EPA Laboratories
— Federal Agencies
— Canadian Agencies
— U. S. Territories
These individuals and organizations actively
participate in the collection, storage, retrieval, and
analysis of water quality data. All utilize storet
for these efforts, contributing to the quality and
quantity of the parameter observations described
on the opposite page. Several Federal agencies-
including the U. S. Forest Service, the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the U. S. Geological Survey, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority—complement the efforts of those
having specific geographical interests. Over 40
states, as well as many other organizations, have
direct access to storet for both storage and
retrieval, thereby contributing significantly to the
timeliness of storet's data.
and
presented
in the right
formats
and storet
can help
you
The array of representative reports pictured here
exemplifies the versatility of storet and its water
quality data to help users prepare a myriad of
detailed, summary, or exception reports relative
to their specific areas or locations of interest. Data
reported can reflect the latest, most current infor-
mation available, or it can draw upon the histori-
cal depth of the data, going back as far as the
late '50s. Most users obtain their reports from
small portable computer terminals conveniently
located in or near their offices.
These two pages have presented an overview of
the data available within storet The inside
pages describe several examples of how various
users today utilize storet to achieve a variety
of objectives relating to water quality assessment
and management.
-------
epa
The Environmental Protection Agency was
created in 1970 to foster an integrated, coordi-
nated attack on environmental pollution in
cooperation with state and local governments EPA
endeavors to abate and control pollution system-
atically by proper integration of a variety of
research, monitoring, standard setting, and en-
forcement activities. Through Public Law 92-500,
EPA has the overall responsibility to provide water
that is clean enough both for recreational activity
and for the protection of fish and wildlife In-
herent in this charter is the requirement of main-
taining an information inventory concerning the
quality of the Nation's waters
storet
storet is a computenzed data base utility main-
tained by EPA for the storage and retrieval of
parametric data relating to the quality of the
waterways of the United States The system was
conceived and initiated under the auspices and
administration of the Public Health Service in the
early 1960s Since its early days when storet
input and output was achieved via the mails, the
system has evolved into a comprehensive infor-
mation data base, accessible by hundreds of users
via computer terminals located throughout
the country.
storet—
the right
answer
This publication was prepared to provide an over-
view of the content and capabilities of the storet
system, and to describe a number of uses made
of this information by those organizations con-
cerned and involved with the abatement and
control of water pollution within the United States.
for more
information
For further information on how storet can help
you fulfill your needs with respect to the collec-
tion, reporting, and analysis of water quality data,
contact your local storet representative, storet
User Assistance in Washington, D.C. (202-
426-7792) can give you names and phone
numbers.
-------
Appendix 9
INFORMATION
SERVICES
FOR
Business
Industry
Government
FROM THE
GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY
-------
INFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTER
PRICE GILBERT MEMORIAL LIBRARY
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Telephone: (404) 894-4526
TWX: 810-751-8639
SCHEDULE OF
SERVICES AND FEES
INFORMATION SERVICES AVAILABLE
BUSINESS, INDUSTRY,
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Reference/Bibliographic Services
Literature Searching
Retrospective or Current Manual Searching
On-Line, Interactive Computer Searching
Verification of Incomplete or Incorrect Citations
Interlibrary Loan
Locating and Obtaining Items not in the Library
Translations
Search for Existing Translations
Referral to Translator
Reproduction
Photocopying/Microfilming
Enlargements (from microtext)
Microfiche Duplications
Georgia Tech Library Microfiche Catalog
Basic Catalog plus Supplements
$15.00 per hour
(less than 1 hour-$10.00)
$15.00 per hour, plus copying cost
(not to exceed 5 hours with-
out further consultation)
Please inquire,, Cost varies
with data base.
$5.00-$10.00 per item depending
on complexity
$5.00 per item
$5.00 per item plus cost to
Library
$5.00 plus cost to Library
$5.00 minimum
$2.50 per item, plus 10
-------
Subject Strengths
ENGINEERING ** SCIENCE ** MANAGEMENT
Aerospace Engineering
Architecture
Architectural Engineering
Bioengineering
Biology
Building Construction
Ceramic Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
City Planning
Civil Engineering
Communication Engineering
Computer Utilization
Crystallography
Electrical Engineering
Engineering Mechanics
Environmental Studies
Electronics
Geophysical Sciences
Industrial Design
Industrial Engineering
Industrial Management
Information Science
Management
Materials Technology
Mathematics
Mechanical Engineering
Metallurgy
Nuclear Engineering
Nuclear Science
Paper
Physics
Psychology
Public Health
Public Health Engineering
Sanitary Engineering
Safety Engineering
Systems Engineering
Textile Engineering
Textiles
Transportat ion
Wastes Engineering
Water Resources
Special Materials
Collections
The Georgia Tech Library has extensive holdings of the following special materials:
Abstracts * Bibliographies * Indexes
Patents (U.S. and Foreign)
Standards and Specifications
Technical Reports
(U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Department of
Defense, Housing and Urban
Development, Rand Corporat ion,
AD's, PB's, etc.)
Maps * Atlases * Nautical Charts
^Deposit service from U.S.G.S.,
Defense Mapping Agency, and
National Oceanic Service.)
Government Documents
(U.S. Government Printing
Of f ice Depos itory.)
Russian Serials
Conference Proceedings and Symposia
Industrial Catalogs and Directories
-------
LITERATURE SEARCHING
RETROSPECTIVE * CURRENT AWARENESS * SDI * CUSTOM * MANUAL * ON-LINE
The Georgia Tech Library provides literature search service using the
most appropriate tools available. Our manual and on-line, computer-
based searches combine the latest mechanical techniques with the
personal touch of trained information personnel and subject specialisjts.
PRINTED SEARCHING TOOLS
The library's resources include a comprehensive collection of abstracting
and indexing journals and other bibliographic tools. The disciplines;
in science and technology are covered with considerable magnitude and
depth. The most important abstracting and indexing tools in the social
sciences, humanities, and liberal arts are also available.
MACHINE SEARCHABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Over 85 separate data bases, described on the following pages, are
accessible through on-line, interactive computerized literature
searching. Most of the data bases are subject oriented — some
quite broad and others quite narrow in scope. Others are comprehensive
in subject coverage but are limited by format of material covered,
such as books, patents, dissertations, or government reports. Some
others are non-bibliographical data bases containing statistics and
other information on industrial plants, foundations, and research
programs in progress.
WHICH TO CHOOSE?
The proper sources and search strategy can best be determined by direct
discussion between the searcher and the requestor. Whether or not a
search should be conducted on-line, manually, or both will depend on
several variables: The general field, specific topic, interdisciplinary
aspects of the topic, time period to be covered, depth and comprehensiveness
desired, time available in which to do the search, type of output
desired, and the amount of funds available for the search.
DOCUMENT DELIVERY
After the literature search — if it is necessary to obtain the book,
article, report, patent, or other document identified in the search,
the resources and services of the library are again important. Most
of the needed items will be in the library. For those which are not,
the Information Exchange Center in the library will try to obtain
them for you or refer you to the proper source.
For more specific information, or to order a search, call James B. Dodd,
Coordinator of Service to Business & Industry, (404) 894-4526.
-------
S;
+ - + +
i
^j g
i ^
6 |
S*i
i t
t :
g §
SB
K u.
tS iJ
o ^1
X
V
1
1
4J
4
U
M
U
tl
W
e
g H
i &
c/> 1
CD I
U
4 «M
•J «i^
||
"K
1g
!g
«l
v -^
£ u X ^5
e
l
%
,j
§ i « i
w *4 cj-s. Q >JP
S w M s; o C> w w >J
g 4 g P M M OJM S
•§ « * * *4 * *
cc
is:
-« 5wO
M « u c ~* c ^
*J 3 C 4 JJ ft) CD
» 00 tfl « M 9 @ t_)
5 |5S E £ ^
i-* y o «H > 1
4 *O *4 -H CO
u c o- a M t5 co
•H * O O (^
O 4J £ JS L1-
r-j 60 U 4J x « ZZ
0 «5 C C C C * —
.C 3 4 •) I- « »s f/j
^
. £
1 i
1 . 1 £
O W U 4 ^>
•r4 C 4 03 *J O
4J >* ^4 J£ £ U 7n
C " 4 t- Z 4 ^^
.5-1 a a g
W U U O 4 Q •*«*.
.cn--> 4u tie
& H O tl -H ^
4 I*. *J *J C * ±S
o«- e oo 4^
4J y o a ^ v LjJ
4^-*4fOI X U 4«H (^
>HJJ4JUbO HV WO) ^»
*j n *9 LI « *j r-i c Q Z3
« M -H « c 4U 4 "-
4JUJJU4 9 tM
w *J 41 C C S
f4JC/lHOCki|4Jt-l4* — i OWBCv4M(BEE 34 ^
f» C <^ <^ T) pO *4 Z^d U>OO44CwV *O O. __^
n_e 4 x .c o "H LI D-JI uouussa-c-cuCv ^"
^.o'tfcljC
C 4J £ 4
5 K o -o
0) 4 •* W
4 4 4 rH O
Li 4 V ,0 U
W -rl L, 7 V
Ss*f«
* 4 C BC
Jt £ -2 *O -3 -S
sissii
V) O
P to « o o
S « S < z d £ £ < 3 o G TJ . M *-ij=4
»4 -H 4> L, O 4HO.O)
*J 4J M V 444
Vt 4 O W •-( > I- «
> •* 4 C 4 4 M.fi
•H u C V *> O
4-> 4 O U C *4 4
0 4J ft. 4) ,-4 4J
< W) W f-< § J3 «
« P -H T3
U 4J 4J L, LI A
lsss-, t!
S3S gS *«
O •
W W W 4J i-l
V
i
iMi20i
S < Z M 0
*
(D
C
W
I
O^iLSoS
g + + + s-
£ ggS t!
I
c
o
I
4
*> J
& !
S
34s
•H -H *
.885
Electrical Engl
Mechanical Engt
Electron Mark
£
MO
surg
^iiS-g
SS5ff
4J {£
?°&Z
»4 U X
w -H « 4 oa
- L, ^ « £
U iH C *4
I
1
ill
II
•«*«
u
« e
4O
3-U
""*u
^4 >, C
4MV
v jt 3
WH*O*M
44CO
MV4443
4JUUUv*J
uue.
•*
i.
li
fe
ru
M Li
4 4
4) ft)
si
x z
V «
p «
in tn
>*. S-. SC
S£ u &
£„!, 5:
3 U
U <
•H
M .e
^
4J h
« O U
•o o
gff
eo u
^g
«
0 X (
.
irt 5 «Q
M U <
*
tfl -C < -t
>*4h!lt.HM
=1
!i
6SSS2.
•s-ss
^lil
s 5
t' t? cj -*
0X0 4
p1 p;
r-|-
i:
= £
«-« e
2j
5!
> - 2 fi « 4 •
££&£££,
3 5^j
-C •» "? X
U 4J U U
c ft, -^
*W t» 1-4
O 3 Q
-------
On-line Data Bases
SOURCES and RATES — Page 1'
( Revised August 1977)
NAME OF
DATA BASE
ACCOUNTANTS
a AGRICOLA
a AHL
a AIM/ARM
a APA
a APTIC
ART MODERN
ASFA
a ASI
BIOS IS PREVIEWS
a CAB ABSTRACTS
CAPC
CASIA
a CEC
CHEM CONDENSATES
CHEM CONDENSATES
CHEM NAME
a CIN
a CIS
CLATMS/CHEM
CLAIMS/CLASS
CLAIMS/GEM
a CMA/EMA
a COMPENBEX
CRECORD
CRIS
DISSABS
DMMS
a EDB
EIS-PLANTS
ENERGY
ENVTJtO BIB
a ENVTROLINE/ENERCYLINE
EPRI
a ERIC
F & S INDEXES
FDN DIRECTORY
FDN GRANTS
a FEDERAL INDEX
FSTA
CEOARCHTVE
SUBJECT COVERAGE
Accounting
Agriculture, Food, & Nutrition
American History & Life
Vocational Training
Psychology
Air Pollution
Modern Art Literature
Marine Biology & Limnology
Government Statistics
Life Sciences
Agriculture
t Chemical Patent Concordance
* Chemical Subject Headings
Exceptional Children
Chemistry
Chemistry
t Chemistry — Registry Numbers
Chemical Industry Notes
Congressional Publications
Chemical Patents
t Patent Classifications
Non-chemical Patents
Chemical & Equipment Markets
Engineering
Congressional Raoord
# Agriculture Research Projects
Comprehensive university Research
t Dod Contract Awards
ERDA Energy Research Abstracts
t Industrial Plants
Environmental Studies
Environmental Science
t Electric Utility Research
Education
Business Research & Forecasting
# Philanthropic Organizations
t Philanthropic Grants
National Policy & Federal Planning
Food & Science Technology
Earth Sciences
INITIAL
COVERAGE
DATE
1974
1970
1955
1967-1976
1967
1970
1974
1975
1974
1972
1973
1972
1973
1966
1970-1976
1977
1973
1974
1970
1950
1970
1972
1970
l97f
1974
1861
1975
1976
Current
1973
1971
Current
1966
1972
Current
1973
1977
1969
1969
LOCKHEED
COST PER
MACHINE HOUR
$ 30.00
$ 70.00
$ 30.00
$ 55.00
$ 40.00
$ 65.00
$ 40.00
$ 50.00
$ 70.00
$ 50.00
$ 65.00
$ 30.00
$ 40.00
$ 50.00
$ 65.00
$ 95.00
$155.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 70.00
$ 45.00
$ 60.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 65.00
$ 95.00
$ 30.00
$ 95.00
$ 65.00
$ 65.00
$ 95.00
$ 70.00
n.a.
LOCKHEED SVC OR OTHER SDC OR OTHER
OFF-LINE COST PER OFF-LINE
COST/HIT MACHINE HOUR COST/HIT
$ 73.00 $ .10
$ .05 $ 43.00 $ .06
$ .15
$ .10
$ .10
$ .10
$ .15
$ .10
$ 108.00 $ .25
$ .10 $ 68.00 $ .10
$ .15
$ .08
$ .12
$ .10
$ .08 $ 68.00 $ .12
$ .16
$ .12
$ .20 $ 78.00 $ .10
$ 108.00 $ .25
$ .10
$ .10
$ .10
$ .20
$ .10 $ 73.00 $ .10
$ 88.00 $ .15
$ .10
$ .12 $ 63.00 $ .12
$ .25
.
$ .50
$ .15
$ .20 $ 93.00 $ .20
$ SO.OOu $ .20
$ .10 $ 43.00 $ .08
$ .20
$ .30
$ .30
$ .20
$ .15
NOTES;
• • Printout includes abstracts
c • Source: Control Data Tcchnotec
a • Source: ERDA
n • New York Tines Information Bank
* " Source: IISDOT through Datelle Columbus Laboratories
ti • Source; Klcctrlc Utility Research Institute
n.a.M Prlcq not yut determined
# - Non-blbllop.raphlc data base
* - Data base includes results of
thorough retronpoctlve senrchtng
In addition to current materials
-------
On-line Data Bases
SOURCES and RATES -- Page 2
< Revised August 1977)
NAME OF
DATA BASE
GEOREF
a GRANTS
* HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS
* INFORM/ABI
* INSFEC - A
a INSFEC - B & C
ISMEC
• LLBA
LIBCON
LISA
MANCON
METADEX
• MGA
NCCAN
NICEH
NRC
• NTIS
• NYTTB
• OCEANIC ABSTRACTS
FAIS
PAPERCHEM
P/E NEWS
PHI
POLLUTION
PTS TNT'L STATISTICS-A
PTS INT'L STATISTICS-B
PTS U.S. STATISTICS-A
PTS U.S. STATISTICS-B
PTS U.S. STATISTICS-C
SUBJECT COVERAGE
Earth Sciences
Grant Programs
History
Business & Management
Physics
Electronics, Computers, & Control
INITIAL
COVERAGE
DATE
1967
Currant
1960
1971
1969
1969
Mechanical Engineering & Eng. Management 1973
Speech Pathology
Library of Congress Cataloging
Library & Information Sciences
Management
Metals & Metallurgy
Meteorology, Geoastrophyslcs
Child Abuse & Neglect
Non-print Educational Materials
# National Referral Center
Government Res. & Development
Gen. Newspapers & Magazines
Oceans and Seas
Public Affairs
Paper Chemistry
Petroleum/ Energy Business News
Pharmaceutical News
Pollution
International Statistical Abstracts
International Annual Time Series
U.S. Statistical Abstracts
U.S. Annual Time Series
U.S. Regional Time Series
RECON - ERDA (See separate listing of 15 data bases relating
SAE ABSTRACTS
SCISEARCH
• SOCABS
"a SOCIAL SCISEARCH
SPIN
SSIE
TECHNOTEC
TITUS
IRIS - A
TRIS - B
TULSA
• WAA
WPI
WRA
Automotive Engineering
Science & Engineering Citations
Sociology
Social Sciences Citations
Physics
* Research In Progress
t Technology Exchange Service
Textile Engineering
* Transportation Work In Progress
Transportation Literature
Petroleum Exploration & Production
Aluminum
Patent, World-Wide
Water Resources
1965
1970
1969
1974
1966
1972
1964
Current
1964
1969
1964
1976
1969
1975
1976
1970
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
to energy and
1965
1974
1963
1972
1975
FY-1975
Current
1970
1967
1967
1965
1968
1963
1968
LOCKHEED LOCKHEED SDC OR OTHER SDC OR OTHER
COST PER OFF-LINE COST PER OFF-LINE
MACHINE HOUR COST/HIT MACHINE HOUR COST/HIT
$ 70.00
$ 70.00
$ 50.00
$ 50.00
$ 67.00
$ 60.00
n.a.
$ 85.00
$ 55.00
n.a.
$ 75.00
$ 40.00
$ 60.00
$ 65.00
$ 70.00
$ 70.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
environmental
$ 75.00
$ 60.00
$ 75.00
n.a.
$ 55.00
$ 83.00 $ .20
$ 68.00 $ .35
$ .15
$ .10 $ 73.00 $ .10
$ .10
$ .10
$ .12
$ .15
$128.00 $ .25
n.a. $ 58.00 $ .15
$ 73.00 $ .10
$ .12
$ .10
n.a.
$ .20
e
$ .10 $ 53.00 $ .08
$ 90.00n $ .30
$ .10
$ .15
$ 88.00 $ .10
$123.00 $ .11
$ .15 $ 73.00 $ .15
$ .15 $ 73.00 $ .15
$ .20
$ .20
$ .20
$ .20
$ .20
problems)
$ 88.00 $ .15
$ .10
$ .15
$ .10
$118.00 $ .25
$ 70.00c $ .06
n.a. n.a.
$ 56.00t $ .10
$ S6.00t $ .10
$133.00 $ .50
$ .10
$ 98.00 $ .12
•
-------
ON-LINE COMPUTER
LITERATURE AND
PATENT SEARCHING
Mrs. Jackie Marvin at computer terminal.
The acquisition of the Texas Instruments Silent 700 remote terminal has added
a new dimension to the literature searching capabilities of the Information Ex-
change Center. Over 85 computerized data bases can be searched on-line.
The data bases cover all areas of science and engineering. Other subjects and
materials covered are education, government statistics, congressional publica-
tions, social sciences, management, and business forecasting. Fees for using
the data bases vary from $10.00 per hour to $150.00 per hour. Most searches
can be done in 10-15 minutes, so the costs are quite reasonable.
Most of the data bases are by-products of the standard printed abstracting and
indexing publications, such as Chemical Abstracts. Engineering Index, Psycho-
logical Abstracts, Predicasts, Social Science Citation Index, Research in Edu-
cation, and Uniterm Index _to U.S. Chemical Patents. Besides being much quicker,
the computerized on-line searching can be performed at much less cost than a
manual search of the same material. Results can be printed out on-line, if
desired.
To illustrate with a specific case, we recently did a search to identify an
expired patent for a specific chemical assigned to a large international chem-
ical firm. The data base contained over 4500 patents assigned to that firm.
By restricting the search further by entering a few key words and appropriate
patent class and subclass information, the number of patents was reduced to 85.
We had the information about these patents printed off-line and mailed to us.
When we received the print-out three days later, we quickly identified the
specific patent of interest to the client. Although we were using the most
expensive data base available, we were on-line only 7 minutes, and the total
cost to the client was under $45.00. To scan those 4500 patents manually would
have required at least 150 manhours.
-------
Patent Services
Translation Services
The library's collection of U.S. patents
is complete from 1946, with a scattered
collection of earlier patents. The
Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent
Office is complete from its beginning.
The library also owns all other patent
searching aids issued by the U.S.
Patent Office.
For foreign patents, the library has
abstracts of the patents issued by
all the major industrial countries of
the world. An airmail coupon service
is used to obtain the complete texts
of foreign patents as needed.
Patents are an important part of the
technical literature, and in many
fields they are covered routinely
by the major indexing and abstracting
publications right along with the
periodical and book literature.
For the inventor the library offers a
limited patent searching service. We
will assist you in getting the services
that are available to you directly from
the U.S. Patent Office. We will help
you use the tools that are available
for conducting your own preliminary
patent search. We will conduct a
preliminary screening of patents
in appropriately designated subject
classes and subclasses, and we will
provide you with a list of agents
and attorneys who are licensed to
practice before the U.S. Patent Office.
For other patent users we have the
resources to search U.S. patents by
patentee, corporate assignee, by subject
class and subclass, and by keywords. There
are some options for on-line computer
patent searching instead of time-consuming
manual searching.
Accurate word-for-word translations of
technical and scientific literature can
be expensive. Rates vary from $.02 per
word to $.05+ per word, depending upon
the language and technical difficulty
of the subject matter.
Opportunities for cost savings.
It is quite possible that the item of
your interest may have already been translated
into English. Special libraries throughout
the U.S. and Great Britain share their
translations through a pool. Copies of
existing translations are available at a
fraction of the cost of having the article
translated again.
Patent equivalency offers another possible
alternative to the word-for-word translation
of some foreign patents. Frequently companies
will wish to protect their patent rights in
several countries. An invention that is
patented in France or Germany or Japan may
also be patented in the U.S., Great Britain,
Canada, or some other English speaking country.
Patent concordances can be searched to locate
such equivalents.
Should these cost-saving efforts fail,
the item can still be sent to a competent
translator. In locating a translator,
we try to match not only the language skills
but the technical background as well.
-------
STANDARDS & SPECIFICATIONS !!!
VENDOR CATALOGS !!!
ARE THESE PROBLEM MATERIALS FOR YOUR COMPANY?
The technical information resources of the Georgia Tech Library have been enhanced
by the recent addition of the VSMF microfilm service.
VSMF stands for Visual Search Microfilm JVLles and consists of three interrelated
files:
Vendor Catalogs
Standards and Specifications
Product Design File
The Vendor Catalog sections contain the unedited contents of the catalogs of over
40,000 U.S. manufacturers.
The Standards and Specifications files contain military standards and specifications,
federal specifications and standards, Qualified Products List, and Joint Army-Navy
Standards. Also included are the standards, specifications, recommended practices,
codes, regulations, test methods, etc. of the American National Standards Institute,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and several other such
organizations. The government standards and specifications files are updated
every fifteen days with complete records of revisions, replacements, changes,
etc. The industry standards are updated every 60 days.
The Product Design File is compiled by cutting apart the manufacturers' catalogs
end refiling (and microfilming) the pages so that similar products from different
vendors are in juxtaposition on the microfilm roll.
Tying these files together is a set of elaborate, but easily usable, indexes.
For instance, the Combined Product Index will lead you not only to a list of companies
which manufacture identical or very similar products, but it will also indicate
which industrial and governmental standards or specifications apply to that product.
Other indexes will enable you to identify the manufacturers of discrete semi-
conductors or printed circuits to fit the specific parameters of your design
requirements. Another index will identify by product U.S. sources for items designed
to metric dimensions, as opposed to those converted to metric dimensions from
customary measurements.
This file is available for your in-person use in the library, and enlargement
copies can be made for you at $.15 per sheet. To save you a trip to the library,
the searching and copying can be done for you by a member of the library staff at
our regular rates for searching and photoreproduction.
-------
GEORGIA INSTITUTE ^TECHNOLOGY
PRICE GlLBERT/^/AORlAL UBRARf
GUIDE ID LOCATION <*/AATERlALS
* DEXVEYDEa/AAJLCLASSIRCATlON
FBRSTROQA
GCVERN/AENT DOOJ'AENTS &
TECNICALI^PORTS COIEOIONS
CONFERENCE K/Aja. CONFERENCE
699"
7*
RDDfl
(o*
FLOCK
5*
FlflOK
DIRECTORS'
OFR1CES
LIBRARY AE/AINISTR&nON OFFICES
ATA9-TN
SERVICES TOBU3NESS&|NDUSrR/
A QDB-QZ^SrT-TAS
FIOCR
«*
NEELY
ROOA RESERVEl
AA-AP
west buildirg
^OTOCOPOMG ,XEROK
ITEK ft. IB/A)
CENTER AQ-QC£
FLOOR
CARD
REFERENCE DEFT.,VS/AF,CDa.E6EOSIAa5QS
ABSn?ACI5,>l
A.ZI-Z9999
east buildirg
Pevey Classification!
000-699 5th Floor East
700-999 4th Floor West
Library of Congress Classification;
A - AP2/.M 1st Floor West
(West Alcove)
AP2/.N - AP999 1st Floor West
(East Alcove)
AS - AS239 2nd Floor West
(West Alcove)
AS240 - AZ 2nd Floor West
(East Alcove)
B - BZ 2nd Floor West
(Following Current Periodicals)
C - D757/.L4 3rd Floor West
(West Alcove)
D757/.LA - Hl/.Y 3rd Floor West
Hl/.Y - HB71/.E3 3rd Floor West
(East Alcove)
HB71/.E4 - HZ 3rd Floor West
J,K,L,M,N,P 4th Floor West
Q - QD2 2nd Floor East
QD3 - QZ,R*,S,T - TA8 3rd Floor East
TA9 - TO 4th Floor East
TP - TX.U.V 5th Floor East
Zl - Z9999 1st Floor East
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1st Floor East
BIOGRAPHIES 4th Floor West
(Following the 900's)
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS 6th Floor East
MAPS 4th Floor West
NEWSPAPERS 1st Floor West
PATENTS 4th Floor West
(West Alcove)
PERIODICALS (Unbound, Recent) 2nd Floor West
TECHNICAL REPORTS 6th Floor East
COLLEGE CATALOGS 1st Floor East
CITY PLANNING READING CENTER 3rd Floor West
(Inner Wall Facing Reading Area)
VISUAL SEARCH MICROFILM FILE 1st Floor East
SERVICE TO BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 3rd Floor East
* This "R" applies only to materials
in the field of MEDICINE. All other
R's should be disregarded when looking
for a book.
OVERSIZE VOLUMES (Shelved On Bottom Shelves)
LIBRARY HOURS:
Monday - Thursday:
Friday:
Saturday:
Sunday:
8 AM - Midnight
8 AM - 6 PM
9 AM - 6 HI
2 PM - Midnight
-------
INFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTER
PRICE GILBERT MEMORIAL LIBRARY
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PHOTOCOPY REQUEST FORM
Date
Your order no.
Deposit account no.
MAIL TO:
SERVICE REQUESTED:
Photocopy O
Enlargement from microtext
Microfiche duplication O
Microfilm dl
Please back order items not
available from the Georgia
Tech Library. D
I/We agree to the conditions set
forth on the back of this sheet.
Signature
Leave Blank
SUBMIT ORDER IN DUPLICATE. References should include journal title,
volume & date; author, title & paging of article.
Leave Blank
1.
2.
DEFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTER
PRICE GILBERT MEMORIAL LIBRARY
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332
For use with window envelope
OUR ORDER NO.
Handling fee(s)
Photocopies
Verification _
Back order
Other
AMOUNT DUE
DATE MAILED
-------
GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY
Information Services
General Policies
The Library provides a variety of information services to other libraries, business, industry, government agencies, and
individuals, including Georgia Tech personnel acting in a private capacity.
Interlibrary loans, reference and bibliographic services and verification are free to academic and public libraries.
These same services, as well as the others described here, are available to others on a fee basis.
REPRODUCTION SERVICES; These services are provided solely
for research and in lieu of lending material or in place
of manual copying. Fees are charged to recover the
costs of services rendered; the Library is not engaged
in the sale of photocopies. All responsibility for use
made of photocopies is assumed by the applicant. The
Library will not reproduce copyrighted materials beyond
recognized "fair use" without the signed authorization of
the copyright owner. Your signature on a request form
will be considered an acceptance of these conditions.
PHOTOCOPYING OR MICROFILMING
$2.50 handling fee per item, plus 10c per page
ENLARGEMENTS (FROM MICROTEXT)
$2.50 handling fee per item, plus 15c per page
MICROFICHE DUPLICATIONS
$2.50 handling fee per item, plus 35c per fiche
BACK ORDERS: $5.00 minimum per item plus costs to the
Library. We will endeavor to obtain photocopies of
items not held by Georgia Tech if so instructed. It is
our responsibility to provide complete bibliographic
information to another source. Therefore, it will
expedite your requests and avoid verification charges
if you include all the information you have when the
request is first submitted. It is also important to
include a verification from a standard source (Chemical
Abstracts, Biological Abstracts, etc.) when known.
A surcharge may be necessary for items extremely
difficult to obtain. This surcharge will vary and will
be at the discretion of the professional staff.
LITERATURE SEARCHING! Literature searches can be retro-
spective or current awareness, or both. Manual and
on-line computer searching can also be combined, as
needed, to cover the topic and time span of interest.
MANUAL: $15.00 per hour plus reproduction and
handling costs, not to exceed five hours without
further consultation or authorization.
COMPUTERIZED: On-line costs vary with the data
bases being searched. Over 50 data bases are
available. Please inquire about rates for subjects
of interest to you.
VERIFICATION; $5.00 - $10.00 per item depending on
complexity. Establishment of correct information
leading to completion of a request can involve consider-
able professional staff time. If we can supply an item
the verification fee is added to the other charges. If
we cannot supply an item any information found is
passed on to the patron and only the verification fee
is charged.
INTERLIBRARY LOANS; $5.00 per item. To libraries only.
Individuals or companies without libraries should
consult their local public libraries.
REFERENCE/BIBLIOGRAPHIC SERVICES; $15.00 per hour (less than
one hour $10.00) plus copying charges incurred. Quick
answer questions are usually handled without charge. Fees
are at the discretion of the librarian performing the
service and are based on professional time and judgment.
TRANSLATIONS: $5.00 per item for searching for existing
translations. If none can be found a custom translation
can be provided for a $5.00 handling fee plus costs to
the Library.
GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY MICROFICHE CATALOG: Basic catalog plus
supplements. Subscription. Please inquire.
RUSH SERVICE AND TELEPHONE REQUESTS: Rush service is available at $10.00 per item (including handling fees) plus copying
charges or Interlibrary loan charge. 507. surcharge for literature searches. For telephone requests there is a transcrip-
tion fee of $2.50 per item plus regular handling fee and copying charges or interlibrary loan charge. If a telephone
request is also a Rush Service request, Rush Service fees are also charged. These services are available (without
charge) in emergency situations to academic and public libraries.
SHIPPING; The Library endeavors to fill all orders as promptly as possible. Photocopied material will normally be sent by
first class mail at no extra charge to patrons in the U.S. and Canada. Material to other countries will normally be sent
by air mail printed matter and cost of postage will be added. We are not responsible for loss or damage in transit.
PAYMENT: DO NOT PREPAY REQUESTS. Exact fees cannot always be determined in advance and are subject to change without notice.
DO NOT SEND REMITTANCE UNTIL BILLED. Billing can be by monthly invoices or deposit accounts. Unless a deposit account has
baen established, invoices will be sent. If you wish to establish a deposit account (to avoid issuing monthly checks)
please write to the Library for application forms and explanatory material.
Rev. 12/1/76
-------
u
u
o
Appendix 10
A
NEED A SEARCH
OF THE
AIR POLLUTION
LITERATURE?
< 5; j
a. 2 -•
t« -^
CxJ W '
£ (_ W Commercial (919) 549-8411
U FTS 629-2460
-------
FREE AIR POLLUTION LITERATURE SERVICES
Who Gets Free Service?
Employees of the following organizations may receive certain free services:
US EPA organizations State and local governmental agencies
Current contractors and grantees of
-------
AVAILABLE TO CERTAIN PARTIES
How Can You Get A Search Made Of The Air Pollution Literature?
Call or write to the appropriate library listed below. If you write, include your telephone number.
Describe the subject matter that you seek. You may specify any data bases to be searched. The library
will search the APTIC file and other files and send listings of the retrieved literature citations, in many
cases with abstracts, to you. Depending on the postal service, you may receive this within 3 days.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Commercial Phone - (919) 549-8411 Ext. 2777 or 2794
FTS Phone - 629-2779
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employees only may also request literature searches from
the following two EPA libraries.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Library (PM-213)
Library Room M2404
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 401 M Street, SW
FTS Phone - 684-7701 Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS Phone • 755-0386
How Can You Get A Copy Of An EPA Air Pollution Publication?
Free copies of US EPA publications are available free of charge, so long as supplies last, from the
US EPA library in Research Triangle Park, N.C. (address and phone above). When supplies are
exhausted, you will be referred to the U.S. Government Printing Office or the National Technical
Information Service.
How Can You Get A Copy Of An Article In The APTIC File?
US EPA employees can get a hard copy or microfiche copy of any article in the APTIC file.
Other parties eligible for free service can get a microfiche copy of any article in the APTIC file.
Anyone can get a hard copy or microfiche copy of any article in the APTIC file when the article is
not available in the open literature.
Write or phone requests to the US EPA Library in Research Triangle Park, N.C. (address and
phones above).
-------
WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT
ELIGIBLE FOR FREE SERVICES?
Getting Air Pollution Literature Searches
Anyone can get a literature search made for a small fee. EPA makes the APTIC file publicly accessi-
ble to everyone on the on-line computer system of the Lockheed Corp. under terms of a contract with
the Franklin Institute. Lockheed, and others, have similarly mounted many other data bases on their
computer systems. If you have access to an appropriate computer terminal and a telephone, you may
search the millions of citations in these data bases. Anyone may make separate arrangements with the
on-line services including:
• Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory
3251 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
Phone- (800) 227-1960
•' System Development Corporation (SDC)
2500 Colorado Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90406
Phone- (800) 421-7229
• Bibliographic Retrieval Services, Inc. (BRS)
1462 Erie Boulevard
Schenectady, New York 12305
Phone- (518) 374-5011
Getting Copies Of EPA Publications On Air Pollution
Anyone can get a copy of an EPA air pollution publication by writing to the US EPA Library
(MD-35) at Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. Copies will be provided as long as supplies last.
When supplies are exhausted, copies may be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22161.
Getting Copies Of Articles In The APTIC File
Anyone can get a copy of any item in the APTIC file which is not available in the open literature.
Requests should be addressed to the US EPA Library (MD-35) at Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Phone - (919) 549-8411 Ext. 2777 or 2794.
-------
Carolina Library Services
1404Brigham Rd.
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
0 *
=P O
•g *
K)
o cr
3 O
31 5
1 5'
3 ora
^2=
§ §
-------
? v 2. |i 3
S ? 5' o - ^
*g 3 m Si. 3 o
jP o" r~ ~- &> c
O
3
§
Q_
3«2 o jg =: (/i
^, c c 2 cr »
1 =? £ »
® ?g rt 3
a a o. *<
Appendix 11
roductiv
3
Q.
^<
O
C
— (
r*
38
-h
0
-I
ft
rarians.
^^0
a>
o
f
w
c
srvices c
(U
o-
«
•<
O
c
•V
>
T3
rt
n
V
(-f
Carolina
r
o 3. X °"
?N O ~t
(TO -S 3 £J
1
0
r-
— ^^O
ff
2
fi
— O
O
o 5
c£ E
CJ rt-
2, §
«
3
— 5' C")
O O
- «
&
8
g.
= =
D. O
8
Il
8- s
I si
if
II
3
I!
0-
I B
3
«
§
I
-------
CAROLINA LIBRARY SERVICES
1^0^ Briccham Rd.
Chapel Hill, !T.CT.
919-929-^870
Appendix 12
RATFS
DOCUMFKT
Photocopies of articles,
documents, etc. from CL3
staffed sources.*
Purchases and photocopies
from other sources
Rush (2^-hour service)
^5.00/item + costs
$2.00 extra
RESEARCH
Bibliographies
Consultation for organizing
or Indexing materials or data
Current Awareness service
^15.00/hour + costs ($10.00 for
students) Minimum 2 hours
.$17.50/hour
Quote on request
Note: Postage, toll calls and other expenses are charged back
to the customer at cost.
Statments or bills are sent on a monthly basis. Deposit accounts
are encouraged.
*CLS staffed sources are NCSU Hill Library, Duke Perkins, Duke
Medical, UPC Wilson, UKC Law, UTC Health Sciences Library and
EPA/RTP.
CAROLINA LIBRARY SERVICES specializes in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW and REGULATIONS
and difficult to obtain EPA DOCUHSiTS. Let us help you.
-------
DRAFT - 12/15/77
APPENDIX 13
EJ^A/NRC^Spcond Memorandum ojF_Ujiderst?.jiding.
Approximately two years have passed since the EPA/NRC Second
Memorandum of Understanding agreement went into effect, thus it is
an appropriate time to reflect experiences under the agreement to
date, Eleven nuclear power generating plants have been implemented
under the agreement and on six other cases, cooperation has been in-
stigated or carried out to varying degrees, Of the latter cases„
initial licensing was already under way or involved permitee State
cases.
Experience to date has had a high degree of success. Such per-
formance has been due to the cooperative attitude of EPA/NRC and permit
State agencies in recognizing that ti:c parallel perfonrance of ike NEPA,
FWPCA and even State review are very much to the advantage of the
agencies, the public and the applicant. EPA has been informed and
afforded the opportunity to take part in site visits, technical con-
ferences and other meetings having a bearing on water quality or related
issues. EPA has also been given the opportunity to observe at meetings
with applicants and parties to NRC proceedings where e^vironniantal issues
and other areas of EPA jurisdiction are discussed. NRC supplies copies
of all comments on the DEIS to EPA as soon as they are received. EPA
participates with NRC in responding to those comments upon water quality
matters and other areas of EPA jurisdiction and related expertise (i.e.,
solid waste, noise, environmental radiation and air programs).
-------
- 2 -
The coordination between agencies to date has generally extended
the previous NRC schedule, however, the benefits derived for the appli-
cant and the public - considering the sequential evaluation of environ-
mental impacts, new information effecting previous agency decisions and
potential of opposing positions by the various concerned agencies certainly
appears to justify the coordination. There has been difficulty on "old
sources" in the NRC operating license stage environmental review or changes
in NPDCS conditions on operating plants. Although the Second Memorandum
covers "new sources" because of EPA's responsibility to prepare an
Environmental Statement, extending the cooperative interchange of status,
new information coordination prior to actions taken by either agency or
the appropriate state can be extremely helpful.
It is believed that joint hearings will bring considerable benefits
both to the Federal and State licensing process, and avoid costly duplica-
tion of effort and lead to the development of better and more complete
records, and consequently, to more informed decisions. Joint hearings
should also enhance the opportunity for effective public participation in
the decisional processes of both agencies. The experience that both
agencies have gained operating under the agreement will be very beneficial
in implementing the new CEQ regulations scheduled to be released in early
1978, and in working with the Department of Energy (DOE).
-------
APPENDIX 14
FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
PART II
COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT
Proposed Regulations for
Implementing Procedural
Provisions
-------
25230
PROPOSED RULES
[3125-01]
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
[40 CFR Port* 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504,
1505, 1506, 1507, 1508]
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT—
REGULATIONS
Proposed Implementation of Procedural
Provisions
MAY 31. 1978.
AGENCY: Council on Environmental
Quality, Executive Office of the Presi-
dent.
ACTION: Proposed regulations.
SUMMARY: These proposed regula-
tions implementing procedural provi-
sions of the National Environmental
Policy Act are submitted for public
comment. These regulations would
provide Federal agencies with uniform
procedures for implementing the law.
The regulations would accomplish
three principal aims: to reduce paper-
work, to reduce delays, and to produce
better decisions.
DATES: Comments must be received
by August 11, 1978.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to: Nicholas C. Yost, Gener-
al Counsel, Attention: NEPA Com-
ments, Council on Environmental
Quality, 722 Jackson Place NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Nicholas C. Yost, General Council
on Environmental Quality (address
same as above), 202-633-7032.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. PURPOSE
We are publishing for public review
draft regulations to implement the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act.
Their purpose is to provide all Federal
agencies with an efficient, uniform
procedure for translating the law into
practical action. We expect the new
regulations to accomplish three princi-
pal aims: To reduce paperwork, to
reduce delays, and at the same time to
produce better decisions, thereby
better accomplishing the law's objec-
tive, which is to protect and enhance
the quality of the human environ-
ment.
These regulations replace the Guide-
lines issued by previous Councils,
under Executive Order 11514 (1970),
and apply more broadly. The Guide-
lines assist Federal agencies in carry-
ing out NEPA's most conspicuous re-
quirement, the preparation of environ-
mental impact statements (EISs).
These regulations were developed in
response to Executive Order 11991
issued by President Carter in 1977, and
implement "the procedural provisions
of the Act." They address all nine sub-
divisions of Section 102(2) of the Act,
rather than just the EIS provision cov-
ered by the Guidelines, and they carry
out the broad purposes and spirit of
the Act.
President Carter instructed us that
the regulations should be:
• * • designed to make the enviromental
impact statement more useful to decision-
makers and the public; and to reduce'paper-
work and the accumulation of extraneous
background data, in order to emphasize the
need to focus on real environmental issues
and alternative^.
The President has also signed Ex-
ecutive Order 12044, dealing with reg-
ulatory reform. It is our intention that
that Order and these NEPA regula-
tions be read together and implement-
ed consistently.
2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE BY THE
REGULATIONS
Following this mandate in develop-
ing the new regulations, we have kept
in mind the threefold objective of less
paperwork, less delay, and better deci-
sions.
A. REDUCING PAPERWORK
The measures tov reduce paperwork
are listed in sec. 1500.4 of the regula-
tions. Neither NEPA nor these regula-
tions impose paperwork requirements
on the public. These regulations
reduce such requirements on agencies
of government.
i. Reducing the length of environ-
mental impact statements. Agencies
are directed to write concise EISs,
which shall normally be less than
150 pages, or, for proposals of unusual
scope and complexity, 300 pages.
ii. Emphasize options among alter-
natives. The regulations stress that
the environmental analysis is to con-
centrate on alternatives, which are the
heart of the matter; to treat peripher-
al matters briefly; and to avoid accu-
mulating masses of background data
which tend to obscure the important
issues.
iii. Using an early "scoping" process
to determine what the important
issues are. To assist agencies in decid-
ing what the central issues are, how
long the EIS shall be, and how the re-
sponsibility for the EIS will be allo-
cated among the lead agency and co-
operating agencies,^ a new -"scoping"
procedure is established. Scoping
meetings are to be held as early in the
NEPA process as possible-^in most
cases, shortly after the decision to pre-
pare an EIS—and shall be integrated
-with other planning.
iv. Writing in plain language. The
regulations strongly advocate writing
in plain, direct language.
v. Following a clear, format. The reg-
ulations spell out a standard format
intended to eliminate repetitive discus-
sion, stress the major conclusions,
highlight the areas of controversy,
and focus on the issues to be resolved.
vi. Requiring summaries of environ-
mental impact statements to make the
document more usable by more people.
vii. . Eliminating duplication, To
eliminate duplication, the regulations
provide for Federal agencies, to pre-
pare EISs jointly with state and local
units of government which have "little
NEPA" requirements. They also
permit a Federal agency to adopt an-
other agency's EIS.
viii. Consistent terminology. The
regulations provide a uniform termin-
ology for the implementation of
NEPA. For instance, the CEQ require-
ment for an environmental assessment
will replace the following (nonexhaus-
tive) list of comparable existing
agency procedures: "survey" (Corps of
Engineers), "environmental analysis"
(Forest Service), "initial assessment"
(Transportation), "normal or special
clearance" (HUD), "environmental
analysis report" (Interior), and "mar-
ginal impact statement" (HEW).)
ix. Reducing paperwork require-
ments. The regulations will reduce re-
porting paperwork requirements as
summarized below. The existing
Guidelines issued under Executive
Order 11514 cover section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA (environmental impact state-
ments), and the new CEQ regulations
cover sections 102(2) (A) through (I).
The regulations replace not only the
requirements of the Guidelines con-
cerning environmental impact state-
ments, but also replace more than 70
different sets of existing agency regu-
lations, although each agency will
issue its own implementing procedures
to explain how these regulations apply
to its particular programs.
Existing Requirements New Requirements
(Applicable Guidelines (Applicable regulations
sections are noted,} sections are noted.)
Assessment (optional
under Guidelines on a
case-by-case basis;
currently required,
however by most major
agencies in practice or
in procedures) 1500.6.
Notice of intent to
prepare impact
statement 1500.6.
Quarterly list of notices
of intent 1500.6.
Negative determination
(decision not to
prepare impact,
statement) 1500.6.
Quarterly list of negative
determinations 1500.6.
Draft EIS 1500.7
Final EIS 1500.6, .10
EISs on legislative
reports ("agency
reports on legislation
initiated elsewhere")
1500.5(a)(l).
Agency report to CEQ on
Implementation
experience 1500.14
-------
PROPOSED, RULES
25231
New Requirements
(Applicable regulations
sections are noted.)
Do.
Record of decision (brief
explanation of decision
EIS has been prepared;
no circulation
requirement) 1505.2.
Existing Requirements
(Applicable Guidelines
sections are noted.)
Agency report to CEQ on
substantive guidance
1500.6(O, .14.
Record of decision (no
Guideline provision
but required by many
agencies' own
procedures and In a
wide range of cases
generally under the
Administrative
Procedure Act and
OMB Circular A-95,
Part I, sec. 6(c) and (d).
Part II. sec. 5<4)>.
B. REDUCING DELAY
The measures to reduce delay are
listed in § 1500.5 of the regulations.
i. Time limits on the NEPA process.
The regulations encourage lead agen-
cies to set time limits on the NEPA
process and require that they be set
when requested by an applicant.
ii. Integrating EIS requirements with
other environmental review require-
ments. Often the NEPA process and
the requirements of other laws pro-
ceed separately, causing delay. The
regulations provide for all agencies
with jurisdiction over the project to
cooperate so that all reviews may be
conducted simultaneously.
iii. Integrating the NEPA process
into early planning. If environmental
review is tacked on to the end of the
planning process, then the process is
prolonged, or else the EIS is written to
justify a decision that has already
been made, and genuine consideration
may not be. given to environmental
factors.
iv. Emphasizing interagency cooper-
ation before the EIS is drafted. The
regulations emphasize that other
agencies should begin cooperating
with the lead agency before the EIS is
prepared in order to encourage early
resolution of differences. By having
the affected agencies cooperate early
in preparing a draft EIS, we hope both
to produce a better draft and to
reduce delays caused by unnecessarily
late criticism.
v. Swift and fair resolution of lead
agency disputes. When agencies differ
as to who shall take the lead in pre-
paring an EIS or none is willing to
take the lead, the regulations provide
a means for prompt resolution' of the
dispute.
vi. Prepare EISs on programs and
not repeat the same material in project
specific EISs. Material common to
many actions may be covered in &
broad EIS, and then through "tiering"
may be incorporated by reference
rather than reiterated in each subse-
quent EIS.
vii. Legal delays. The regulations
provide that litigation should come at
the end rather than in the middle of
the process.
viii. Accelerated procedures for legis-
lative proposals. The regulations pro-
vide accelerated simplified procedures
for environmental analysis of legisla-
tive proposals, to fit better with Con-
gressional schedules.
C. BETTER DECISIONS
Most of the features described above
will help to improve decisionmaking.
This, of course, is the fundamental
purpose of the NEPA process, the end
to,which the EIS is a means. Section
101 of NEPA sets forth the substan-
tive requirements of the Act, the
policy to be implemented by the
"action-forcing" procedures of Section
102. These procedures must be tied to
their intended purpose, otherwise they
are indeed useless paper work and
wasted time. A central purpose of
these regulations is to tie means to
ends.
i. Securing more accurate, profes-
sional documents. The regulations
insist upon accurate documents as the
basis for sound decisions. The docu-
ments should draw upon all the appro-
priate disciplines from the natural and
social sciences, plus the environmental
design arts. The lead agency is respon-
sible for the professional integrity of
reports, and care should be taken to
keep any possible bias from data pre-
pared by applicants out of the envi-
ronmental analysis. A list of people
who helped prepare documents, and
their professorial qualifications,
should be included in the EIS.
ii. Recording in the decision how the
EIS was used. The new regulations re-
quire-agencies to point out in the EIS
analysis of alternatives which one is
preferable on environmental
grounds—including the often-over-
looked alternative of no action at all.
(However, if "no action" is identified
as environmentally preferable, a
second-best alternative must also be
pointed out.)
Agencies must also produce a concise
public record, indicating how the BIS
was used in arriving at the decision. If
the EIS is disregarded, it really is use-
less paperwork. It only contributes if
It is used by the decisionmaker and
the pubic. The record must state what
the final decision was; whether the en-
vironmentally preferable alternative
was selected; and If not, what consider-
ations of national policy led to an-
other choice.
iii. Insure follow-up of agency deci-
sions. When an agency requires envi-
ronmentally protective mitigation
measures in its decision, the 'regula-
tions provide for means to ensure that
these measures are monitored and im-
plemented.
Taken altogether, the regulations
aim for a streamlined process, but one
which as a broader purpose than the
Guidelines they replace. The Guide-
lines emphasized a single document,
the EIS, while the regulations empha-
size the entire NEPA process, from
early planning through assessment
and EIS preparation through provi-
sions for follow-up. They attempt to
gear means to ends—to insure that the
action-forcing procedures of sec. 102(2)
of NEPA are used by agencies to fulfill
the requirements of the Congression-
ally mandated policy set out in sec.
101 of the Act. Furthermore, the regu-
lations are uniform, applying in the
same way to all federal agencies, al-
though each agency will develop its
own procedures for implementing the
regulations. Our attempt has been
with these new regulations to carry
out as faithfully as possible the origi-
nal intent of Congress in enacting
NEPA.
3. BACKGROUND
We have been greatly assisted in our
task by the hundreds of people who
responded to our call for suggestions
on how to make the NEPA process
work better. In public hearings which
we held in June 1977, we invited testi-
mony from a broad array of public of-
ficials, organizations, and private citi-
zens, affirmatively involving NEPA's
critics as well as its friends.
Among those represented were the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which co-
ordinated testimony from business;
the Building and Construction Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO,- for
labor; the National Conference of
State Legislatures, for state and local
governments; the Natural Resources
Defense Council, for environmental
groups. Scientists, scholars, and the
general public were there.
There was extraordinary consensus
among these diverse witnesses. All,
without exception, expressed the view
that NEPA benefited the public.
Equally widely shared was the view
that the process had become needless-
ly cumbersome and should be trimmed
down. Witness after witness said that
the length and detail of EIS's made it
extremely difficult to distinguish/the
important from the trivial. The degree
of unanimity about the good and bad
points of the NEPA process was such
that at one point an official spokes-
man for the oil industry rose to say
that he adopted in its entirety the
presentation of the President of the
Sierra Club.
After the hearings we culled the
record to organize both the problems
and the solutions proposed by wit-
nesses into a 38-page "NEPA Hearing
Questionnaire." The questionnaire
was sent to all witnesses, every state
governor, all federal agencies, and ev-
eryone who responded to an invitation
in the FEDERAL REGISTER. We received
more than 300 replies, from a broad
cross section of groups and individuals.
By the comments we received from re-
spondents we gauged our success in
faithfully presenting the results of the
public hearings. One conimenter, an
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
25232
PROPOSED RULES
electric utility official, said that for
the first time in his life he knew the
gt>Kernment was listening to him, be-
cailse all the suggestions made at the
hearing turned up in the question-
naire. We then collated all the re-
sponses for use in- drafting the regula-
tions.
We also met with every agency of
the federal government to discuss
what should be in the regulations.
Guided by these extensive interactions
with government agencies and the
public, we prepared draft regulations
which were circulated for comment to
all federal agencies in December 1977.
We then studied agency comments in
detail, and consulted numerous federal
officials with special experience in im-
plementing the Act. Informal redrafts
were circulated to the agencies with
greatest experience in preparing envi-
ronmental impact statements. Im-
provements from our December 12
draft reflect this process.
At the same time that federal agen-
cies were reviewing the early draft, we
continued to meet with, listen to, and
brief members of the public, including
representatives of business, labor,
state and local governments, environ-
mental groups and others. We also
considered seriously and proposed in
our regulations virtually every major
recommendation made by the Com-
mission on Federal Paperwork and the
General Accounting Office in their
recent studies on the environmental
impact statement process. The studies
by these two independent bodies were
among the most detailed and informed
reviews of the paperwork abuses of
the impact statement process. In many
case*, such as streamlining intergov-
ernmental coordination, the proposed
regulations go further than their rec-
ommendations.
4. EXCLUSION
It should be noted that the issue of
application of NEPA to environmental
effects occurring outside the United
States is the subject of continued dis-
cussions within the government and is
not addressed in these regulations. Af-
fected agencies continue to hold dif-
ferent views on this issue. Nothing in
these regulations should be construed
as asserting that NEPA either does or
does not apply in this situation.-
5. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE
REGULATIONS
Since Executive Order 12044 became
effective on March 23, 1978, after the
Council's draft NEPA regulations had
completed interagency review, the
extent to which Executive Order
12044 applies to the Council's nearly
completed process of developing
NEPA regulations is not clear. Never-
theless, the requirements of Executive
Order 12044 have been undertaken to
the fullest extent possible. The analy-
ses required by sections 2 (b), (c), (d),
and 3(b), to the extent they may apply
to the Council's proposed NEPA regu-
lations, are available on request.
The Council has prepared a special
environmental assessment of these
regulations to Illustrate the analysis
that is appropriate under NEPA. The
assessment discusses alternative regu-
latory approaches. Some regulations
lend themselves to an analysis of their
environmental impacts, particularly
regulations with substantive require-
ments of those which apply to a physi-
cal setting. Although the Council obvi-
ously believes that its regulations will
work to improve environmental qual-
ity, the impacts of procedural regula-
tions of this kind are not susceptible
to detailed analysis beyond that set
out in the assessment.
Both the analyses under Executive
Order 12044 and the assessment de-
scribed above are available on request.
Comments may be made on both docu-
ments in the same manner and by the
same time as the comments on the
regulations.
6. ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS FOR COMMENTS
Several issues have been brought to
our attention as appropriate subjects
to be covered in the regulations. They
are difficult issues on which we par-
ticularly solicit thoughtful views.
a. Data bank. Many were intrigued
by the idea of a national data bank in
which information developed in one
EIS would be stored and become avail-
able for use in a subsequent EIS.
Public comment on the questionnaire
led us to conclude, reluctantly, that
the idea is impractical.,In practice
most environmental information is
specific to given areas or activities. To
assemble a nationwide data bank
would demand financial and other re-
sources that are simply beyond the
benefits that may be achieved. We
have not included a data bank in these
regulations but have instead tried to
insure that in the scoping process the
preparers of one EIS become aware of
all related EISs so they can make use
of the information in them. We would,
however, welcome comment on this
subject.
b. Encouragement for agencies to
fund public comments on EISs when
an important viewpoint would other-
wise not be presented. The Council has
been urged to provide either encour-
agement or direction to agencies, as
part of their routine EIS preparation,
to provide funds to responsible groups
for public comments when important
viewpoints would not otherwise be pre-
sented. Although we are acutely aware
of the importance of comments to the
success of the EIS process, we have
not included such a provision. We
would welcome comment on this sub-
ject also.
CONCLUSION
We look forward to your comments
and help. To repeat, comments should
be sent by August 11,1978, to Nicholas
C. Yost, General Counsel, Attention:
NEPA Comments, Council on Environ-
mental Quality', 722 Jackson Place
NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Thank you for cooperating with us.
CHARLES WARREN,
Chairman.
Title 40 Chapter V is proposed to be
amended by revising Part 1500 and by
adding Parts 1501 through 1508 to
read as follows:
PART 1500—PURPOSE, POLICY, AND
MANDATE
Sec.
1500.1 Purpose.
1500.2 Policy.
1500.3 Mandate.
1500.4 Reducing paperwork.
1500.5 Reducing delay.
1500.6 Agency authority.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.8.C. 4371 et seq.), section 309
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514, Pro-
tection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality (March 5, 1970 as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order 11991. May 24,1977).
§ 1500.1 Purpose.
(a) The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic nation-
al charter for protection of the envi-
ronment. It establishes policy, sets
goals (section 101), and provides
means (section 102) for carrying out
the policy. Section 102(2) contains
"action-forcing" provisions to make
sure that federal agencies act accord-
ing to the letter and spirit of the Act.
The regulations that follow implement
Section 102(2). Their purpose is to tell
federal agencies what they must do to
comply with the procedures and
achieve the goals of the Act. The
President, the federal agencies, and
the courts share responsibility for en-
forcing the Act so as to achieve the
substantive requirements of section
101.
(b) NEPA_p_rocedures must insure
that
are"
keK, The informa-
before aeti<
tion must be of high quality. Accurate
scientific analysis, expert agency com-
ments, and public scrutiny are essen-
tial to implementing NEPA. Most im-
portant, NEPA documents -JRWt-coi*-?
rrntrntr on thffi inm«gfcthnt" nrr-tntir
significant to the action in question,
rather than amassing needless detail.
(c) Ultimately, of course, flN* note
betterdecuraej^bj^ better* decisions
that count.J
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25233
fThe NEPA process is intended
"to help public officials make decisions
that are based on understanding of en-
vironmental consequences, and take
actions that protect, restore, and en-
hance the environment. These regula-
tions provide the direction to achieve
this purpose.
§1500.2 Policy.
Federal agencies shall to the fullest
extent possible:
(a) Interpret and administer the
policies, regulations, and public, laws
of the United States in accordance
with the policies set forth in the Act
and in these regulations.
(b) Implement -procedures to make
the NEPA process more useful to deci-
sionmakers and the public; to reduce
paperwork and the accumulation of
extraneous background data; and to
.emphasize real environmental., inantp
.and alternative*. Environmental
impact statements shall be concise,
clear, and to the point, and shall be
supported by evidence that agencies
have made the necessary environmen-
tal analyses.
(c) fcafewraMr the requirements of
NEPA with other planning and envi-
ronmental review procedures required
by law or by agency practice
such rjrocedures,run
(d) Encourage and facilitate public
involvement in decisions which affect
the quality of the human environ-
ment.
(e) Use the NEPA process to identify
and assess the reasonable alternatives
to proposed actions that will avoid or
minimize adverse effects of these ac-
tions upon the quality of the human
environment.
(f) Use all practicable means, con-
sistent with the requirements of the
Act and other essential considerations
of national policy, to restore and en-
hance the quality of the human envi-
ronment and avoid or minimize any
possible adverse effects of their ac-
tions upon the quality of the human
environment.
11500.3 Mandate.
Parts 1500-1508 of this Title provide
regulations applicable to and binding
on all Federal agencies for implement-
Ing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42
TJ.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA or the Act)
except where compliance would be in-
consistent with other statutory re-
quirements. These regulations are
Issued pursuant to NEPA, the Envi-
ronmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et
seq.), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857h-7), and
Executive Order 11514, Protection and
Enhancement of Environmental Qual-
ity (March 5, 1970, as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order 11991, May 24, 1977).
These regulations, unlike the prede-
cessor guidelines, are not confined to
Sec. 102(2)(C) (environmental impact
statements). The regulations apply to
the whole of section 102(2). The provi-
sions of the Act and of these regula-
tions must be read together as a whole
in order to comply with the spirit and
letter of the law. It is the Council's in-
tention that judicial review of agency
compliance with these regulations not
occur before an agency has filed the
final environmental impact statement,
or has made a finding of no significant
impact, or takes action that will result
in irreparable injury.
§ 1500.4 Reducing paperwork.
Agencies shall reduce excess paper-
work by:
(a) Reducing the length of environ-
mental impact statements (§ 1502.2(c)),
by means-such as setting appropriate
page limits (§ 1501.7(b)
-------
25234
PROPOSED RULES
its existing authority and as a man-
date to view traditional policies and
missions in the light of the Act's na-
tional environmental objectives. Agen-
cies shall review their policies, proce-
dures, and regulations accordingly and
revise them as necessary to ensure full
compliance with the purposes and pro-
visions of the Act. The phrase "to the
fullest extent possible" in section 102
means that, each agency of the Federal
Government shall comply with that
section unless existing law applicable
to the agency's operations expressly
prohibits or makes compliance impos-
sible.
PART 1501—NEPA AND AGENCY PLANNING
Sec.
1501.1 Purpose.
1501.2 Apply NEPA early In process.
1501.3 When to prepare an environmental
assessment.
1501.4 Whether to prepare an environmen-
tal impact statement.
1501.5 Lead agencies.
1501.6 Cooperating agencies.
1501.7 Scoping.
1501.8 Time limits.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), Section
309 of the- Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May, 24, 1977).
§ 1501.1 Purpose.
The purposes of this part include:
(a) Integrating the NEPA process
into early planning to insure appropri-
ate consideration of NEPA's policies
and to eliminate delay.
(b) Emphasizing cooperative consul-
tation among agencies before the envi-
ronmental impact statement is pre-
pared rather than adversary com-
ments on a completed document.
(c) Providing for the swift and fair
resolution of lead agency disputes.
(d) Identifying at an early stage the
significant environmental issues de-
serving of study and deemphasizing in-
significant issues, narrowing the scope
of the environmental impact state-
ment accordingly.
(e) Providing a mechanism for put-
ting appropriate time limits on the en-
vironmental impact statement process.
§ 1501.2 Apply NEPA early in process.
Agencies shall integrate the NEPA
process with other planning at the
earliest possible time to insure that
planning and decisions reflect environ-
mental values, to avoid delays later in
the process, and to head off potential
conflicts. Each agency shall:
(a) As specified by § 1507.2 comply
with the mandate of sec. 102(2)(A) to
"utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the inte-
grated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design
arts in planning and in decisionmaking
which may have an impact on man's
environment."
(b) Identify environmental effects
and values in adequate detail so they
can be compared to economic and
technical analyses. Environmental
documents and appropriate analyses
shall be circulated and reviewed at the
same time as other planning docu-
ments.
(c) Study, develop, and describe ap-
propriate alternatives to recommended
courses of action in any. proposal
which involves unresolved conflicts
concerning alternative uses of availa-
ble resources as provided by sec.
102(2)(E) of the Act.
(d) Provide for cases where actions
are planned by other than Federal
agencies before Federal involvement
so that:
(1) The sponsor of the proposal initi-
ates studies if Federal involvement is
foreseeable.
(2) The Federal agency consults
early with appropriate State and local
agencies and with interested private
persons and organizations when its
own involvement is reasonably foresee-
able.
(3) The Federal agency commences
its NEPA process at the earliest possi-
ble time.
§ 1501.3 When to prepare an environmen-
tal assessment.
An environmental assessment
(§ 1508.9) shall be prepared unless one
is not necessary under the procedures
adopted under § 1507.3(b). Agencies
may prepare an assessment on any
action at any time in order to assist
agency planning and decisionmaking.
§ 1501.4 Whether to prepare an environ-
mental impact statement.
In determining whether to prepare
an environmental impact statement
the Federal agency shall:
(a) Determine under § 1507.3 wheth-
er the proposal is one which
(1) Normally requires an environ-
mental impact statement, or
(2) Normally does not require either
an environmental impact statement or
an environmental assessment (categor-
ical exclusion).
(b) If the proposed action is not cov-
ered by paragraph (a), prepare an en-
vironmental assessment (§ 1508.9). The
agency shall involve environmental
agencies and the public, to the extent
practicable, in preparing the assess-
ment.
(c) Based on the environmental as-
sessment make its determination
whether to prepare an environmental
impact statement.
(d) If the agency will prepare an en-
vironmental impact statement, the
agency shall commence the scoping
process (§ 1501.7).
(e) If the agency determines on the
basis of the environmental assessment
not to prepare a statement, the agency
shall prepare a finding of no-signifi-
cant impact (§ 1508.13).
(1) The agency shall make the find-
ing of no significant impact available
in a manner calculated to inform the
affected public as specified in § 1506.6.
(2) In certain limited circumstances
the agency shall make the.finding of
no significant impact available for
public review for 30 days before the
agency makes its final determination
whether to prepare an environmental
impact statement and before the
action may begin. The circumstances
are:
(i) The proposed action is, or is close-
ly similar to, one which normally re-
quires the preparation of an environ-
mental impact statement under the
procedures adopted by the agency pur-
suant to section 1507.3(b), or
(ii) The nature of the proposed
action is one without precedent.
§ 1501.5 Lead agencies.
(a) A lead agency shall supervise the
preparation of an environmental
impact statement if more than one
Federal agency either:
(1) Proposes or is involved in the
same action; or
(2) Is involved in a group of actions '
directly related to each other because
of their functional interdependence or
geographical proximity.
(b) More than one Federal, State, or
local agency, one of which must be
Federal, may act as joint lead agencies
to prepare an environmental impact
statement (section 1506.2).
(c) If an action satisfies the provi-
sions of paragraph (a) of this section
the potential lead agencies concerned
shall determine by letter or memoran-
dum which agency shall be the lead
agency and which shall be cooperating
agencies. The agencies shall resolve
the lead agency question in a manner
that will not cause delay. If there is
disagreement among the agencies, the
following factors (which are listed in
descending importance) shall deter-
mine lead agency designation:
(1) Magnitude of agency's involve-
ment.
(2) Project approval/disapproval au-
thority.
(3) Expertise concerning the action's
environmental effects.
(4) Duration of agency's involve-
ment.
(5) Sequence of agency's involve-
ment.
(d) If potential lead agencies fail to
agree on which agency shall be the
lead agency as specified in paragraph
(c) of this section, (1) any Federal
agency or (2) any State or local agency
or private person substantially affect-
ed by the absence of agreement on
lead agency designation may make a
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25235
written request to the potential lead
agencies that a lead agency be desig-
nated.
(e) If Federal agencies are unable to
agree on which agency will be the lead
agency or if the procedure described in
paragraph (d) of this section has not
resulted within a reasonable time in a
lead agency designation, any of the
agencies or persons concerned may file
a request with the Council asking it to
determine which Federal agency shall
be the lead agency.
A copy of the request shall be trans-
mitted to each potential lead agency.
The request shall consist of:
(1) A precise description of' the
nature and extent of the proposed
action;
(2) A detailed statement of why each
potential lead agency should or should
not be the lead agency under the crite-
ria specified in subparagraph (2).
(f) A response may be filed by any
potential lead agency concerned
within 20 days after a request is filed
with the Council. The Council shall
determine within 20 days after receiv-
ing the request and all responses
which Federal agency shall be the lead
agency and the extent to which the
other Federal agencies concerned shall
be cooperating Federal agencies.
§1501.6 Cooperating agencies.
The purpose of this section is to em-
phasize agency cooperation early in
the NEPA process. Upon request of
the lead agency, any other Federal
agency which has jurisdiction by law
shall be a cooperating agency. In addi-
tion any other Federal agency which
has special expertise with respect to
any environmental issue, which should
be addressed in the statement may be
a cooperating agency upon request of
the lead agency.
(a) The lead agency shall:
(1) Request the participation of each
cooperating agency in the NEPA proc-
ess at the earliest possible time.
(2) To the maximum extent possible
consistent with its responsibility as
lead agency use the environmental
analysis and proposals of cooperating
agencies with jurisdiction by law or
special expertise.
(3) Meet with a cooperating agency
at the latter's request.
(b> Eaeh cooperating agency shall;
(1) Participate in the NEPA process
at the earliest possible time.
(2) Participate in the scoping proc-
ess.
(3) .Assume on request of the lead
agency responsibility for developing
information and preparing environ-
mental analyses includiBg portions oi
the environmental impact statement
concerning which the cooperating
agency has special expertise.
(4) Make available-staff rapport**
the lead agency's request*4o enhance
the latter's interdisciplinary capabili-
ty.
(5) Normally a cooperating agency
shall use its own funds. The lead
agency shall, to the extent available
funds permit, fund those major activi-
ties or analyses it requests from coop-
erating agencies. Potential lead agen-
cies shall include such funding re-
quirements in their budget requests
§ 1501.7 Scoping.
There shall be an early and open
process for determining the seope of
issues to be addressed and for identify-
ing the significant issues. This process
shall be termed scoping. As soon ta
practicable after its decision to pre-
pare an environmental impact state-
ment and before the scoping process
the lead agency shall publish a notice
jof intent (§ 1508.21) in the FEDERAL
REGISTER.
(a) As part of the scoping process
the lead agency shall:
(1) Invite the participation of affect-
ed Federal, State, and local agencies,
any affected Indian tribe, the propo-
nent of the action, and other interest-
ed persons (including those who might
not be in accord with the action).
(2) Determine the scope (§1508.24)
and the significant issues to be ana-
lyzed in depth in the environmental
impact statement.
(3) Identify and eliminate from de-
tailed study the issues which are not
significant or which have been covered
by prior environmental review
(§ 1506.3), narrowing the discussion of
these issues in the statement to a brief
presentation of why they will not have
a significant effect on the human envi-
ronment or a reference to their cover-
age elsewhere.
(4) Allocate assignments for prepara-
tion of the environmental impact
statement among the lead and cooper-
ating agencies, with the lead agency
retaining responsibility for the state-
ment.
(5) Indicate any environmental as-
sessments and other environmental
impact statements which are being or
will be prepared that are related to
but are not part of the scope of the
impact statement which is the subject
of the meeting.
(6) Identify other environmental
review and consultation requirements
so the lead and cooperating agencies
may comply with section 1502.25.
(7) Indicate the relationship between
the timing of the preparation of envi-
ronmental analyses and the agency's
tentative planning and , decision-
making schedule.
(8) When practicable hold an early
scoping meeting or meetings which
may be integrated with any other
early planning meeting the agency
has. Such scoping meeting will often
be appropriate when the impacts of a
particular action are confined to spe-
cific sites.
(b) As part of the scoping process
the lead agency may:
(1) Set page limits on environmental
documents (§ 1502.7).
(2) Set time limits (§ 1501.8).
(c) An agency shall revise the deter-
minations made under paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section if substantial
changes are made later in the pro-
posed action or if significant new cir-
cumstances (including information)
arise which bear on the proposal or its
impacts.
§ 1501.8 Time limits.
Although the Council has decided
that universal time limits for the
entire NEPA process are too inflexible
to prescribe, Federal agencies are en-
couraged to set time limits appropriate
to individual action (consistent with
§ 1506.10). When multiple agencies are
involved the reference to agency below
means lead agency.
(a) The agency shall:
(1) Consider the following factors in
determining time limits:
(i) Potential for environmental
harm.
(Up Size of the proposed action.
(iii) State of the art of analytic tech-
niques.
(iv) Degree of public need for the
proposed actions, including the conse-
quences of delay.
(v9 Number of persons and agencies
affected.
(vi) Degree to which relevant infor-
mation is known and if not known the
time required for obtaining it.
(vii) Degree to which the action is
controversial.
(2) Set limits if an applicant for the
proposed action requests them, pro-
vided that they are consistent with
the purposes of NEPA and other es-
sential considerations of national
policy.
(b) The agency may:
(1) Set overall time limits or limits
for each constituent part of the NEPA
process, which may include:
(i) Decision on whether to prepare
an environmental impact statement (if
not already decided).
(ii) Determination of the scope of
the environmental impact statement.
(iii) Preparation of the draft envi-
ronmental impact statement.
(iv) Review of any comments on the
draft environmental impact statement
from the public and agencies.
(v) Preparation of the final environ-
mental impact statement.
(vi) Review of any comments on the
final environmental impact statement.
(vii) Decision on the action based in
part on the environmental impact
statement.
(2) Designate a person (such as the
project manager or a person in the
agency's office with NEPA responsibil-
ities) to expedite the NEPA process.
(c) State or local agencies or mem-
bers of the public may request a Fed-
eral Agency to set time limits.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
25236
PROPOSED RULES
PART 1502—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
Sec.
1502.1 Purpose.
1502.2 Implementation.
1502.3 Statutory Requirements for State-
ments.
1502.4 Major Federal Actions Requiring
the Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements.
1502.5 Timing.
1502.6 Interdisciplinary Preparation.
1502.7 Page Limits.
1502.8 Writing.
1502.9 Draft, Final, and Supplemental
Statements.
1502.10 Recommended Format.
1502.11 Cover Sheet.
1502.12 Summary.
1502.13 Purpose and Need.
1502.14 Alternatives Including the Pro-
posed Action.
1502.15 Environmental Consequences.
1502.16 Affected Environment.
1502.17 List of Preparers.
1502.18 Appendix.
1502.19 Circulation of the Environmental
Impact Statement.
1502.20 Tiering.
1502.21 Incorporation by Reference.
1502.22 Incomplete or Unavailable Infor-
mation.
1502.23 Cost-Benefit Analysis.
1502.24 Methodology and Scientific Accu-
racy.
1502.25 Environmental Review and Consul-
tation Requirements.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), Section
309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
UJS.C. 1857h-7). and Executive Order 11514.
Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May 24,1977).
§1502.1 Purpose.
The primary purpose of an environ-
mental impact statement is as an
action-forcing device- to insure that
the policies and goals defined in the
Act are infused into the ongoing pro-
grams and actions of the Federal Gov-
ernment. It shall provide full and fair
discussion of significant environmen-
tal impacts and shall inform decision-
makers and the public of the reason-
able alternatives which would avoid or
minimize adverse impacts or enhance
the Quality of the human environ-
ment. Agencies shall focus on signifi-
cant environmental issues and alterna-
tives and shall reduce paperwork and
the accumulation -of extraneous back-
ground data. Statements shall be con-
cise, clear, and to the point, and shall
be supported by evidence that the
agency has made the necessary envi-
ronmental analyses. An environmental
impact statement is more than a dis-
closure document. It shall be used by
Federal officials in conjunction with
other relevant material to plan actions
and make decisions.
§1502.2 Implementation.
To achieve the purposes set forth in
{1502.1 agencies shall prepare envi-
ronmental impact statements in the
following manner:
(a) Environmental impact state-
ments shall be analytic rather than
encyclopedic.
(b) Impacts shall be discussed in pro-
portion to their significance. There
shall be only brief discussion of other
than significant issues. As in a finding
of no significant impact, there should
be only enough discussion to show
why more study is not warranted.
(c) Environmental impact state-
ments shall be kept concise and shall
be no longer than absolutely necessary
to comply with NEPA with these regu-
lations. Length should vary first with
potential environmental problems and
then with project size.
(d) Environmental impact state-*
ments shall state how alternatives con-
sidered in it and decisions baseon on it
will or will not achieve the require-
ments of sections 101 and 102(1) of the
Act and other environmental laws and
policies.
(e) The range of alternatives dis-
cussed in environmental impact state-
ments shall encompass those the ulti-
mate agency declsionmaker considers.
(f) Agencies shall not commit re-
sources prejudicing selection of alter-
natives before making a final decision
(§ 1506.1).
(g) Environmental impact state-
ments shall serve as the means of as-
sessing the environmental impact of
proposed agency actions, rather than
justifying decisions already made.
§ 1502.3 Statutory requirements for state-
ments.
As required by sec. 102(2XC) of
NEPA environmental impact state-
ments (§1508.11) are to be included in
every recommendation or report
On proposals (§ 1508.22).
For legislation and (§ 1508.16).
Other major Federal actions
(§ 1508.17).
Significantly (§ 1508.25).
Affecting (§§ 1508.3, 1508.8).
The quality of the human environ-
ment (§ 1508.14).
§ 1502.4 Major Federal actions requiring
the preparation of environmental
impact statements.
(a) Agencies shall make sure the pro-
posal which is the subject of an envi-
ronmental impact statement is proper-
ly defined. Agencies shall use the cri-
teria for scope (§ 1508.24) to determine
which proposal(s) shall be the subject
of a particular statement. Proposals or
parts of proposals which are related to
each other closely enough to be, in
effect, a single course of action shall
be evaluated in a single impact state-
ment.
(b) Environmental impact state-
ments may be prepared, and are some-
times required, for broad Federal ac-
tions such as the adoption of new
agency programs or regulations
(§ 1508.17). Agencies shall prepare
statements on broad actions to be rele-
vant to policy and timed to coincide
with meaningful points in agency
planning and decisionmaklng.
(c) When preparing statements on
broad actions, agencies may find it
useful to evaluate the proposal(s) by
one or more agencies in one of the fol-
lowing ways:
(1) Geographic, including actions oc-
curring hi the same general location,
such as an ocean, region, or metropoli-
tan area.
(2) Generic, including actions which
have relevant similarities, such as
common timing, Impacts, alternatives.
methods of implementation, media, or
subject matter.
(3) Technological development in-
cluding federal or federally assisted re-
search, development or demonstration
programs aimed at developing new
technologies which, if applied, could
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. Statements shall
be prepared on such programs and
shall be available before the program
has reached a st£ge of investment or
commitment to implementation likely
to determine subsequent development
or restrict later alternatives.
(d) Agencies shall as appropriate
employ scoping (§ 1501.7), tiering
(§1502.20), and other methods listed
in §§ 1500.4 and 1500.5 to relate broad
and narrow actions and to avoid dupli-
cation and delay.
§1502.5 Timing.
An agency shall commence prepara-
tion of an environmental impact state-
ment as close as possible to the time
the agency makes or is presented with
a proposal (§ 1508.22) so that prepara-
tion can be completed in time for the
final statement to be included in any
recommendation or report on the pro-
posal. The statement shall be pre-
pared early enough so that it can prac-
tically serve as an important contribu-
tion to the decisionmaking process and
shall not be used to rationalize or jus-
tify decisions already made
<§§ 1500.2(c), 1501.2, and 1502.2). For
instance:
(a) For projects directly undertaken
by Federal agencies such statements
shall be prepared at the feasibility
analysis (go-no go) stage and may be
supplemented at a later stage if neces-
sary
(b) For applications to the agency
appropriate preliminary environmen-
tal assessments or statements shall be
commenced at the latest immediately
after the application is received, but
federal agencies are encouraged to
prepare them earlier, preferably joint-
ly with applicable State or local agen-
cies.
(c) For adjudication, the final envi-
ronmental impact statement shall nor-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 197S
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25237
mally precede the final staff recom-
mendation and that portion of the
public hearing related to the impact
study. In appropriate circumstances
the statement may follow preliminary
hearings designed to gather informa-
tion for use in the statements.
§ 1502.6 Interdisciplinary preparation.
Environmental impact statements
shall be prepared using an inter-disci-
plinary approach which will insure the
integrated use of the natural and
social sciences and the environmental
design arts (section 102C2XA) of the
Act). The disciplines of the preparers
shall be correlated to the scope and
issues identified in the scoping process
(§1501.7).
§ 1502.7 Page limits.
The text of ^QMdfe environmental
impact statement (e!g.. paragraphs
(d) through (g) of § 1502.10) shall nor-
mally be l«p(,.y^to 180 pager BJidTME
proposals flr-tnwstral scope or conv
plexity shall normally be less than 300
pages.
§1502.8 Writing.
Environmental impact statements
shall be written in plain language and
may use appropriate graphics so that
they may be understood by decision-
makers and the public. Agencies
should employ writers of clear prose
or editors to write, review, or edit
statements, which will be based upon
the analysis and supporting data from
the natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts.
§ 1502.9 Draft, final, and supplemental
statements.
Except as provided in § 1506.8, envi-
ronmental impact statements shall be
prepared in two stages and may be
supplemented.
(a) Draft environmental impact
statements shall be prepared in ac-
cordance with the scope decided upon
in the scoping process. The lead
agency shall work with the cooperat-
ing agencies and shall obtain com-
ments as required in Part 1503. At the
time the draft statement is prepared it
must fulfill and satisfy to the fullest
extent possible the requirements es-
tablished for final statements in sec-
tion 102(2XC) of the Act. If a draft
statement is so inadequate as to pre-
clude meaningful analysis, the agency
shall prepare and circulate a revised
draft of the appropriate portion. In
the draft statement the agency shall
make every effort to disclose and dis-
cuss at appropriate points in the text
all major points of view on the envi-
ronmental impacts of the alternatives
including the proposed action.
(b) Final environmental impact
statements shall respond to comments
as required in Part 1503. In the final
statement the agency shall discuss at
appropriate points in the text the exis-
tence of any responsible opposing view
not adequately discussed in the draft
statement and shall "indicate the agen-
cy's response to the issues raised.
(c) Agencies:
(1) Shall prepare supplements to
either draft or final environmental
impact statements if:
(i) The agency makes substantial
changes in the proposed action that
are relevant to environmental con-
cerns; or
(ii) There are significant new cir-
cumstances, relevant to environmental
concerns (including information),
bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts.
(2) May also prepare supplements
when the agency determines that the
purposes of the Act will be furthered
by doing so.
(3) Shall adopt procedures for intro-
ducing a supplement into its formal
administrative record, if such a record
exists.
(4) Shall prepare, circulate, and file
a supplement to a statement in the
same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as
a draft statement unless alternative
procedures are approved by the Coun-
cil.
§ 1502.10 Recommended format.
Agencies shall use a format for envi-
ronmental impact statements which
will encourage good analysis and clear
presentation of the alternatives in-
cluding the proposed actions. The fol-
lowing standard format for environ-
mental impact statements should be
followed unless there is a compelling
reason to do otherwise:
(a) Cover sheet
(b) Summary
(c) Table of Contents
(d) Purpose of and Need for Action
(e) Alternatives Including Proposed
Action (sees. 102(2)(C)(iii) and
102(2)(E) of the Act).
(f) Environmental Consequences (es-
pecially sees. 102(2KC) (i), (ii), (iv),
and (v) of the Act.
(g) Affected Environment.
(h) List of Preparers.
(i) List of Agencies, Organizations,
and Persons to Whom Copies of the
Statement Are Sent.
(j) Index.
(k) Appendices (if any).
If a different format is used, it shall
include paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (h), (i),
and (j), of this section and shall in-
clude the substance of paragraphs (d),
(e), (f), (g), and (k) of this section as
further described in §§ 1502.11-1502.18
in any appropriate format.
§ 1502.11 Cover sheet.
The cover sheet shall not exceed one
page. It shall include:
(a) The name of the responsible
agencies including the lead agency and
any cooperating agencies.
(b) The name of the proposed action
that is the subject of the statement
(and if appropriate the names of relat-
ed cooperating agency actions), to-
gether with the State(s) and
county(ies) (or the country if applica-
ble) where the action is located.
(c) The name, address, and tele-
phone number of the person at the
agency who can supply further infor-
mation.
(d) A designation of the statement as
a draft, final, or draft or final supple-
ment.
(e) A one paragraph abstract of the
statement.
(f) The date by which comments
must be received (computed in cooper-
ation with EPA § 1506.10)).
§ 1502.12 Summary.
Each environmental impact state-
ment shall contain a summary which
adequately and accurately summarizes
the statement. The summary shall
stress the major conclusions, areas of
controversy (including issues raised by
agencies and the public), and the
issues to be resolved (including the
choice among alternatives). The sum-
mary will normally not exceed 15
pages.
§ 1502.13 Purpose and need.
The statement shall briefly specify
the underlying purpose and need to
which the agency is responding in pro-
posing the action and alternatives.
Normally this section shall not exceed
one page.
§1502.14 Alternatives including the pro-
posed action.
This section is the heart of the envi-
ronmental Impact statement. Based on
the information and analysis present-
ed in the sections on the Environmen-
tal Consequences (§ 1502.15) and the
Affected Environment (§1502.16), i*»
fthus sharp-
ening the issues and providing a clear
basis for choice among options by the
decisionmaker and the public. In this
section agencies shall:
(a) Rigorously explore and objective-
ly evaluate all reasonable alternatives,
and for alternatives which were elimi-
nated from detailed study, briefly dis-
cuss the reasons for such elimination.
(b) Devote substantial treatment to
each alternative considered in detail
including the proposed action so that
reviewers may evaluate the compara-
tive merits.
P9fcmttbtn the jurisdiction of the
-------
25238
PROPOSED RULES
the alternative identified is for no
action, the agency shall also identify
the alternative other than no action
that is environmentally preferable and
the reasons for identifying it.
(f) Identify the agency's preferred
alternative or alternatives if one or
more exists in the draft statement and
identify such alternative(s) in the
final statement unless another law
prohibits the expression of such a
preference.
(g) Include appropriate mitigation
measures not already included in the
proposed action or alternatives.
§ 1502.15 Environmental consequences.
This section forms the scientific and
analytic basis for the comparisons
under § 1502.14. It shall consolidate
the discussions of those elements re-
quired by sees. 102(2)(C) (i), (ii), (iv),
and (v) of NEPA which are within the
scope of the statement and as much of
sec. 102(2XC)(iii) as is necessary to
support the comparisons. This in-
cludes the environmental impacts of
the proposed action and alternatives,
any adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented, the relation-
ship between short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productiv-
ity, and any irreversible or irretriev-
able commitments of resources which
would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented. The
Council intends that preparers not
cause duplication in the discussions
under § 1502.14 and this section. This
section shall include discussions of:
(a) Direct effects and their signifi-
cance (§1508.8).
(b) Indirect effects and their signifi-
cance (§ 1508.8).
(c) Possible conflicts between the
proposed action and the objectives of
Federal, regional, State, and local land
use plans, policies, and controls for the
area concerned.
(d) The environmental effects of al-
ternatives including the proposed
action. The comparisons under
§ 1502.14 will be based on this discus-
sion.
(e) Energy requirements and conser-
vation potential of various alternatives
and mitigation measures.
(f) Natural or depletable resource re-
quirements and conservation potential
of various alternatives and mitigation
measures.
(g) Means to mitigate adverse envi-
ronmental impacts (if not fully cov-
ered under § 1502.14(g)).
§ 1502.16 Affected environment.
The environmental impact state-
ment shall succinctly describe the en-
vironment of the area or areas to be
affected by the alternatives under con-
sideration. The descriptions shall be
no longer than Is necessary to under-
stand the effects of the alternatives.
Data and analyses in a statement shall
be commensurate with the importance
of the impact, with less important ma-
terial summarized, consolidated, or
simply referenced. Agencies shall
avoid useless bulk in statements and
shall concentrate effort and attention
on important issues. Verbose descrip-
tions of the affected environment are
themselves no measure of the adequa-
cy of an environmental impact state-
ment.
§ 1502.17 List of preparers.
The environmental impact state-
ment shall list the names, together
with their qualifications and profes-
sional disciplines (§ 1502.6 and 1502.8),
of the persons who were primarily re-
sponsible for preparing the environ-
mental impact statement or significant
background papers, including basic
components of the statement. Where
possible the names of persons who are
responsible for a particular analysis,
including analyses in background
papers, shall be identified. Normally
the list will not exceed two pages.
§ 1502.18 Appendix.
If an agency prepares an appendix
to an environmental impact statment
the appendix shall:
(a) Consist of material prepared in
connection with an environmental
impact statement (as distinct from ma-
terial which is not so prepared and
which is incorporated by reference
§1502.21)).
(b) Normally consist of material
which substantiates any analysis fun-
damental to the impact statement.
(c) Normally be analytic and rele-
vant to the decision to be made.
(d) Be circulated with the environ-
mental impact statement or be readily
available on request.
§ 1502.19 Circulation of the environmental
impact statement.
Agencies shall circulate the entire
draft and final environmental impact
statements except as provided in
§ 1502.18(d) and 1503.4(c). However, if
the statement is unusually long, the
agency may circulate the summary in-
stead, except that the entire state-
ment shall be furnished to:
(a> Any Federal agency which has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to any environmental
impact involved and any appropriate
Federal, State or local agency author-
ized to develop and enforce environ-
mental standards.
(b) Any person, organization, or
agency requesting the entire environ-
mental impact statement.
(c) In the case of a final environmen-
tal impact statement any person, orga-
nization, or agency which submitted
substantive comments on the draft.
If the agency circulates the sum-
mary and thereafter receives a timely
request for the entire statement, the
time for comment for that requestor
only shall be extended by at least 15
days beyond the minimum period.
§1502.20 Tiering.
Agencies are encouraged to tier their
environmental impact statements to
eliminate repetitive discussions of the
same issues and to focus on the actual
issues ripe for decision at each level of
environmental review (§ 1508.26).
Whenever a broad environmental
impact statement has been prepared
(such as a program or policy state-
ment) and a subsequent statement or
environmental assessment is then pre-
pared on an action included within the
entire program or policy (such as a
site specific action) the subsequent
statement or environmental assess-
ment need only*summarize the issues
discussed in the broader statement
and incorporate such discussions by
reference and shall concentrate on the
issues specific to the subsequent
action. Tiering may also be appropri-
ate for different stages of actions.
(Section 1508.26).)
§ 1502.21 Incorporation by reference.
Agencies shall incorporate material
into an environmental impact state-
ment by reference when to do so will
cut down on bulk without impeding
agency and public review of the action.
The incorporated material shall be
cited in the statement and its content
briefly described. No material may be
incorporated by reference unless it is
reasonably available for inspection by
potentially interested persons within
the time allowed for comment. Materi-
al based on proprietary data which is
itself not available for review and com-
ment shall not be incorporated by ref-
erence.
§ 1502.22 Incomplete or unavailable infor-
mation.
Agencies dealing with gaps in rele-
vant information including scientific
uncertainty, shall always make clear
that such information is lacking or
that uncertainty exists.
(a) If the information is essential to
a reasoned choice among alternatives
and is not known and the costs of ob-
taining it are not exorbitant, the
agency shall include the information
in the environmental impact state-
ment.
(b) If the information is important
to the decision and the means to
obtain it are not known (e.g., the
means for obtaining it are beyond the
state of the art) the agency shall
weigh the need for the action against
the risk and severity of possible ad-
verse impacts were the action to pro-
ceed in the face of uncertainty. If the
agency proceeds, it shall include a
worst case analysis.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25239
§ 1^02.23 Cost-benefit analysis.
Of a cost-benefit analysis is being
considered for the- proposed action, it
shall be incorporated by reference or
appended to the statement as an aid in
evaluating the environmental conse-
quences. To assess the adequacy of
compliance- with sec. 102(2XB) of the
Act the statement shall when a cost-
benefit analysis is prepared discuss the
relationship between that analysis and
any analyses of unquantif led environ-
mental impacts, values, and amenities.
§ 1502.24 Methodology and scientific accu-
racy.
Agencies shall insure the profession-
al/including scientific, integrity of the
discussions and analyses in environ-
mental impact statements. They shall
identify any methodologies used and
shall make explicit reference by foot-
note to the scientific and other
sources relied upon for conclusions in
the statement.
\
§ 1502.25 Environmental review and con-
sultation requirements.
To the fullest extent possible, agen-
cies shall prepare draft environmental
impact statements concurrently with
and integrated with environmental
impact analyses and related surveys
and studies required by the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
Sec. 661 et seq.) the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
Sec. 470 et seq.), the Endangered Spe-
cies Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et
seq.) and other environmental review
laws.
Sec.
1503.1
1503.2
1503.3
1503.4
PART 1503—COMMENTING
Inviting Comments.
Duty to Comment.
Specificity of Comments.
Response to Comments.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), Section
309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
Protection and Enhancement ot Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May 24,1977).
§ J 503.1 Inviting comments.
(a) After preparing a draft environ-
mental impact statement and before
preparing a final environmental
impact statement the agency shall:
(1) Obtain the comments of any Fed-
eral agency which has jurisdiction by
law or special expertise with respect to
any environmental impact involved or
which is authorized to develop and en-
force environmental standards.
. (2) Request the comments of appro-
priate State and local agencies which
are authorized to develop and enforce
environmental standards, or any
agency which has requested that it re-
ceive statements on actions of the kind
proposed.
(3) Request comments from the
public, affirmatively soliciting com-
ments from those persons or organiza-
tions who may be interested or affect-
ed.
(b) After preparing a final environ-
mental impact statement an agency
may request comments on it before
the decision is finally made. In any
case other agencies or persons may
make comments before the final deci-
sion unless a different time is provided
under § 1506.10.
§ 1503.2 Duty to comment.
jurisdiction by
with respect to
any environmental impact involved or
which are authorized to develop and
enforce environmental standards.
igency m~Hy (and a cooperat-
ing agency that is satisfied that its
views are adequately reflected in the
environmental impact statement
would) reply that it has no1 comment.
§ 1503.3 Specificity of comments.
Comments on an environmental
impact statement or on a proposed
action shall be as specific as possible
mnl map r>*hi hy MlliNM tlir nilffinimy
the
tttft-Ol tiM
a
commenting agency criticizes a lead
agency's predictive methodology, the
commenting agency should describe
the alternative methodology which it
prefers and why.
S 1503.4 Response to comments.
(a) An agency preparing a final envi-
ronmental impact statement shall
assess and consider comments both in-
dividually and collectively, and shall
respond by one or more of the means
listed below specifying its response in
the final statement. Possible responses
are to:
(1) Modify the proposed action.
(2) Develop and evaluate alterna-
tives not previously given serious con-
sideration by the agency.
(3) Supplement, improve, or modify
its analyses.
(4) Make factual corrections.
(5) Explain why the comments do
not warrant further agency response,
citing the sources, authorities, or rea-
sons which support the agency's posi-
tion and, if appropriate, indicate those
circumstances which would trigger
agency reappraisal or further re-
sponse.
(b) All substantive comments re-
ceived on the draft statement (or sum-
maries thereof where the response has
been exceptionally voluminous),
should be attached to the final state-
ment whether or not the comment is
thought to merit individual discussion
by the agency in the text of the state-
ment.
(c) If changes are minor and are con-
fined to the responses described in
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this sec-
tion, agencies may write them on
errata sheets and attach them to the
statement instead of rewriting the
draft statement. In such cases only
the comments, the responses, and the
changes and not the final statement
need be circulated (§1502.19). The
entire document with a new cover
sheet shall be filed as the final state-
ment (§ 1506.9).
PART 1504—PREDECISION REFERRALS TO THE
COUNCIL OF PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTIONS
FOUND TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSA-
TISFACTORY
Sec.
1504.1 Purpose.
1504.2 Criteria for Referral.
1504.3 Procedure for Referrals and Re-
sponse.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 'et seq.), Section
309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May 24.1977).
§ 1504.1 Purpose.
(a) This part establishes procedures
for referring to the Council Federal
interagency disagreements concerning
proposed major Federal actions that
might cause unsatisfactory environ-
mental effects. It provides means for
early resolution of such disagree-
ments.
(b) Under section 309 of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609), the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is directed to review and
comment publicly on the environmen-
tal impacts of Federal activities, in-
cluding actions for which environmen-
tal impact statements are prepared. If
after this review the Administrator de-
termines that the matter is "unsatis-
factory from the standpoint of public
health or welfare or environmental
quality," section 309 directs that the
matter be referred to the Council
(hereafter "environmental referrals").
(c) Ifcrtft^ HMttoB-aeacZMC* ot ,-the
Aot ather-FeJeial ageiielea may make
ohnlla* Feviowft. of environments*
impact statements, including Judgr-
m«Qifc-oa the acceptability of antici-
pated, environmental irr>p«K»tj. These
rasiewa must be made available to th*
OMitlmt trio fniinril aB*the-pabHc.
§ 1504.2 Criteria for referral.
Environmental referrals should only
be made to the Council after concert-
ed, timely (as early as.possible in the
process), but unsuccessful attempts to
resolve differences with the lead
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 197S
-------
25240
PROPOSED RULES
agency. In determining what environ-
mental objections to the matter are
appropriate to refer to the Council, an
agency should weigh potential adverse
environmental impacts, considering:
(a) Possible violation of national en-
vironmental standards or policies.
(b) Severity.
(c) Geographical scope.
(d) Duration.
(e) Importance as precedents.
(f) Availability of environmentally
preferable alternatives.
§ 1504.3 Procedure for referrals and re-
sponse.
(a) A Federal agency making the re-
ferral to the Council shall:
(1) Advise the lead agency at the
earliest possible time that it intends to
refer a matter to the Council unless a
satisfactory agreement is reached.
(2) Include such advice in the refer-
ring agency's comments on the draft
environmental impact statement,
except when the statement does not
contain adequate information to
permit an assessment of the matter's
environmental acceptability.
(3) Identify any essential informa-
tion that is lacking and request that it
be made available at the earliest possi-
ble time.
(4) Send copies of such advice to the
Council.
(b) The referring agency shall deliv-
er its referral to the Council not later
than twenty-five (25) days after the
final environmental impact statement
has been made available to the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, com-
menting agencies, and the public.
Except when an extension of this
period has been granted by the lead
•agency, the council will not accept a
referral after that date.
(c) The referral shall consist of:
(DA copy of the letter signed by the
head of the referring agency and deliv-
ered to the lead agency informing the
lead agency of the referral and the
reasons for it, and requesting that no
action be taken to implement the
matter until the Council acts upon the
referral. The letter shall include a
copy of the statement referred to in
§ 1504.3(0(2) below.
(2) A statement supported by factual
evidence leading to the conclusion
that the matter is unsatisfactory from
the standpoint of public health or wel-
fare or environmental quality. The
statement shall:
(i) Identify any material facts in
controversy and incorporate (by refer-
ence if appropriate) agreed upon facts,
(ii) Identify any existing environ-
mental requirements or policies which
would be violated by the matter,
(iii) Present the reasons the refer-
ring agency believes the matter is envi-
ronmentally unsatisfactory,
(iv) Contain a finding by the agency
whether the issue raised is one of na-
tional importance because of the
threat to national environmental re-
sources or policies or for some other
reason,
(v) Review the steps taken by the re-
ferring agency to bring its concerns to
the attention of the lead agency at the
earliest possible time, and
(vi) Give the referring agency's rec-
ommendations as to what mitigation
alternative, further study, or other
course of action (including abandon-
ment of the matter) are necessary to
remedy the situation.
(d) Not later than twenty-five (25)
days after the referral to the Council,
the lead agency may deliver a response
to the Council and the referring
agency. If the lead agency requests
more time and gives assurance that
the matter will not go forward in the
interim, the Council may grant an ex-
tension. The response shall:
(1) Address fully the issues raised in
the referral.
(2) Be supported by evidence.
(3) Give the lead agency's response
to the referring agency's recommenda-
tions.
(e) Not later than twenty-five (25)
days after receipt of both the referral
and any response or upon being in-
formed that there will be no response
(unless the lead agency agrees to a
longer time), the Council may take
one or more of the following actions:
(1) Conclude that the process of re-
ferral and response has successfully
resolved the problem.
(2) Initiate discussions with the
agencies with the objective of media-
tion with referring and lead agencies.
(3) Hold public meetings or hearings
to obtain additional views and infor-
mation.
(4) Determine that the issue is not
one of national importance and re-
quest the referring and lead agencies
to pursue their decision process.
(5) Determine that the issue should
be further negotiated by the referring
and lead agencies and is not appropri-
ate for Council consideration until one
or more heads of agencies report to
the Council that the agencies' dis-
agreements are irreconcilable.
(6) Publish its findings and recom-
mendations (including where appropri-
ate a finding that the submitted evi-
dence does not support the position of
an agency).
(7) When appropriate, submit the re-
ferral and the response together with
the Council's recommendation to the
President for action.
PART 1505—NEPA AND AGENCY
DECISIONMAKING
Sec.
1505.1 Agency decisionmaking procedures.
1505.2 Record of decision in those cases re-
quiring environmental impact state-
ments.
1505.3 Implementing the decision.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, ,as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), section 309
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857h-7>, and Executive Order 11514, Pro-
tection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order 11991, May 24, 1977).
§ 1501.1 Agency decisionmaking proce-
dures.
Agencies shall adopt procedures
(§1507.3) to ensure that decisions are
made in accordance with the policies
and purposes of the Act. Such proce-
dures shall include but not be limited
to:
(a) Implementing procedures under
section 102(2) to achieve the require-
ments of sections 101 and 102(1).
(b) Designating the major decison
points for the agency's principal pro-
grams likely to have a singificant
effect on the human environment and
assuring that the NEPA process corre-
sponds with them.
(c) Requiring that relevant environ-
mental documents, comments, and re-
sponses be part of the record in formal
rulemaking or adjudicatory proceed-
ings,
(d) Requiring that relevant environ-
mental documents, comments, and re-
sponses accompany the proposal
through existing agency review proc-
ess so that agency officials use the
statement in making decisions.
(e) Requiring that the alternatives
considered by the decision maker are
encompassed by the range of alterna-
tives discussed in the relevant environ-
mental documents and that the deci-
sionmaker consider the alternatives
described in the environmental impact
statement. If another decision docu-
ment accompanies the relevant envi-
ronmental documents to the decision-
maker, agencies are encouraged to
make available to the public before
the decision is made any part of that
document thab relates to the compari-
son of alternatives.
§ 1505.2 Record of decision in those cases
requiring environmental impact state-
ments.
At the same time of its decision (or,
if appropriate, its recommendation to
Congress) each agency shall prepare a
concise public record of decision. The
record, which may be integrated into
any other record prepared by the
agency, including that required by
OMB Circular A-95, part I, sections 6
(c) and (d), and part II, section 5(b)(4),
shall state:
(a) What the decision was.
(b) If an alternative other than
those designated pursuant to
§ 1502.14(e) has been selected, the rea-
sons why other specific considerations
of national policy overrode those alter-
natives.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25241
(c) Whether all practicable means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm
have been adopted, and if not, why
they were not. For any mitigation
adopted, a monltortnr and enforce-
ment program where applicable shall
be adopted and summarized.
§ 1505.3 Implementing the decision.
Agencies may provide for monitoring
to assure that their decisions are car-
ried out and should do so in important
cases. Mitigation (§1505.2(0) and
other conditions established in or
during the review of the environmen-
tal impact statement and committed
as part of the decision shall be Imple-
mented by the appropriate agency.
The lead agency shall:
(a) Include appropriate conditions in
grants, permits or other approvals.
(b) Condition funding of actions on
initigation.
(c) Upon request, inform cooperating
or commenting agencies on progress in
carrying out mitigation measures pro-
posed by any such agency and adopted
by the agency making the decision.
(d) Upon request, make available to
the public the results of relevant mon-
itoring.
PART 1506—OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA
Sec.
1506.1 Limitations on actions during NEPA
process.
1506.2 Elimination of duplication with
State and local procedures.
1506.3 Adoption.
1506.4 Combining documents.
1506.5 Agency responsibility.
1506.6 Public Involvement.
1506.7 Further guidance.
1506.8 Proposals for legislation.
1506.9 Filing requirements.
1506.10 Timing of agency action.
1506.11 Emergencies.
1506.12 Effective date.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.8.C. 4371 et seq.). Section
309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May 24,1977).
§ 1506.1 Limitations on actions during
NEPA process.
(a) Until an agency issues a record of
decision as provided in § 1505.2 (except
as provided in subsection (c)), no
action concerning the proposal shall
be taken which would:
(1) Have an adverse environmental
impact; or
(2) Limit the choice of reasonable al-
ternatives.
(b) If any agency is considering an
application from a non-Federal entity,
and is aware that the applicant is
planning to take an action within the
agency's jurisdiction that would meet
either of the criteria in § 1506.1(a),
then the agency shall promptly notify
the applicant that the agency will take
appropriate action to insure thatthe
objectives and procedures of NEPA
are achieved.
'(c) While work on a required pro-
gram environmental impact statement
is in progress and the action is not cov-
ered by an existing program state-
ment, agencies shall not undertake in
the interim any major Federal action
which may significantly affect the
quality of the human environment
and which is covered by the program
unless such action:
(1) Is justified independently of the
program;
(2) Will not prejudice the ultimate
decision on the program. Interim
action prejudices the ultimate decision
on the program when it tends to deter-
mine subsequent development or limit
alternatives; and
(3) Is itself accompanied by an ade-
quate environmental impact state-
ment.
§ 1506.2 Elimination of duplication with
State and local procedures.
(a) Agencies authorized by law to co-
operate with State agencies of
statewide jurisdiction pursuant to sec-
tion 102(2)(D) of the Act may do so.
(b) Agencies shall cooperate with
State and local agencies to the fullest
extent possible to reduce duplication
in NEPA and comparable State and
local requirements, unless they are
specifically barred from doing so by
some other law. Except where an
agency is proceeding in the manner
specified by paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, such cooperation shall to the ful-
lest extent possible include:
(1) Joint planning processes.
(2) Joint environmental research
and studies.
(3) Joint public hearings (except
where otherwise provided by statute).
(4) Joint environmental assessments
and joint environmental impact state-
ments. In such cases one or more Fed-
eral agencies and one or more State or
local agencies shall be joint lead agen-
cies. Where State laws or local ordin-
ances have environmental impact
statement requirements in addition to
but not in conflict with those in
NEPA, Federal agencies shall cooper-
ate in fulfilling the requirements of
those as well as Federal laws so that
one document will comply with all ap-
plicable laws.
(c) To better integrate environmen-
tal impact statements into state or
local planning processes, statements
shall discuss any inconsistency of a
proposed action with any approved
State or local plan and laws (whether
or not federally sanctioned).
§ 1506.3 Adoption.
(a) An agency may adopt a Federal
draft or final environmental impact
statement or portion thereof provided
that the agency treats the statement
as a draft and recirculates it (except as
provided below in paragraph (b) of
this section): And provided, That the
statement or portions thereof meets
the standards for an adequate draft
statement under these regulations.
(b) A cooperating agency may adopt
without recirculating the environmen-
tal impact statement of a lead agency
when, after an independent review of
the statement, the cooperating agency
concludes that its comments and sug-
gestions have been satisfied.
(c) When an agency adopts a state-
ment which is not final within the
agency that prepared it, or when the
action it assesses is the subject of a re-
ferral under part 1504, or when the
statement's adequacy is the subject of
a judicial action which is not final, the
agency shall so specify.
§ 1506.4 Combining documents.
Any environmental document in
compliance with NEPA may be com-
bined with any other agency docu-
ment to reduce duplication and paper-
work.
§ 1506.5 Agency responsibility.
(a) If an agency relies on an appli-
cant to submit initial environmental
information, the agency should assist
the applicant by outlining the types of
information required. In all cases, the
agency should make its own evalua-
tion of the environmental issues and
take responsibility for the scope and
content of environmental assessments.
(b) Except as provided in §§ 1506.2
and 1506.3 any environmental impact
statement prepared pursuant to the
requirements of NEPA shall be pre-
pared directly by or under contract to
the lead agency or where appropriate
under § 1501.6(b), a cooperating
agency. In the case of such contract it
is the intent of these regulations that
the' contractor be chosen solely by the
lead agency or by the lead agency in
cooperation with cooperating agencies
or where appropriate by a cooperating
agency to avoid any conflict of inter-
est. Contractors shall execute a disclo-
sure statement prepared by the lead
agency or where appropriate the coop-
erating agency specifying that they
have no financial or other interest in
the outcome of the project. If the doc-
ument is prepared by contract, the re-
sponsible Federal official shall furnish
guidance and participate in the prepa-
ration and shall independently evalu-
ate the statement prior to its approval.
Nothing in this section is intended to
prohibit any agency from requesting
any person to submit information to it
or any person from submitting infor-
mation to any agency.
§ 1506.6 Public involvement.
Agencies shall: (a) Make diligent
effort to involve the public in prepar-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
25242
PROPOSED RULES
Ing and implementing their NEPA pro-
cedures.
(b) Provide public notice of NEPA-
related hearings, meetings, and the
availability of environmental docu-
ments by means calculated to inform
those persons and agencies who may
be interested or affected.
(I) In all cases the agency shall mail
notice to those who have requested it
on an individual action.
(2) In the case of an action with ef-
fects of national concern such notice
shall include publication in the FEDER-
AL REGISTER and notice by mail to na-
tional organizations with interest in
the matter and may include listing in
the 102 Monitor.
(3) In the case of an action with ef-
fects primarily of local concern the
notice may include:
(i) Notice to State and local agencies
pursuant to OMB Circular A-95.
(ii) Following the affected State's
public notice procedures for compara-
ble actions.
(ill) Publication in local newspapers
(in papers of general circulation
rather than legal papers).
(iv) Notice through other local
media.
(v) Notice to potentially interested
community organizations including
small business associations.
(vi) Publication in newsletters that
may be expected to reach potentially
interested persons.
(vii) Direct mailing to owners and oc-
cupants of nearby or affected proper-
ty.
(viii) Posting of notice on and off
site in the area where the action is to
be located.
(c) Hold or sponsor public hearings
or public meetings whenever appropri-
ate. Criteria shall include whether
there is:
(1) Substantial environmental con-
troversy concerning the proposed
action or substantial interest in hold-
ing the hearing.
(2) A request for a hearing by an-
other agency with jurisdiction over
the action supported by reasons why a
hearing will be helpful.
(d) Solicit appropriate information
from the public.
(e) Explain in its procedures where
interested persons can get information
or status reports on environmental
impact statements and other elements
of the NEPA process.
(f) Make environmental impact
statements, the comments received,
and any underlying documents availa-
ble to the public pursuant to the pro-
visions of the Freedom of Information
Act (5 U.S.C. 552), without regard to
the exclusion of intra- or interagency
memoranda where such memoranda
transmit comments of Federal agen-
cies on the • environmental impact of
the proposed action.
§ 1506.7 Further guidance.
The Council may provide further
guidance concerning NEPA and its
procedures including:
(a) A handbook which the Council
may supplement from time to time
which shall in plain language provide
guidance and instructions concerning
the application of NEPA and these
regulations.
(b) Publication of the Council's
Memoranda to Heads of Agencies.
(c) In conjunction with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the
publication of the 102 Monitor, notice
of:
(1) Research activities;
(2) Meetings and conferences related
to NEPA; and
(3) Successful and innovative proce-
dures used by agencies to implement
NEPA.
§ 1506.8 Proposals for legislation.
The NEPA process for proposals for
legislation (§ 1508.16) significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human envi-
ronment shall be integrated with the
legislative process of the Congress. A
legislative environmental impact state-
ment is the detailed statement re-
quired by law which shall accompany
proposed legislation to the Congress.
Preparation of a legislative environ-
mental impact statement shall include
consultation with appropriate agencies
(which may be pursuant to OMB Cir-
cular A-19) and conform with the re-
quirements of these regulations except
as follows:
(a) There need not be a scoping
process.
(b) The legislative statement shall
otherwise be treated in the same
manner as a draft statement except as
further specified. There need not be a
final environmental impact statement:
Provided, That when any of the fol-
lowing conditions exist both the draft
and final environmental impact state-
ment on the legislative proposal shall
be prepared and circulated as provided
by sections 1503.1 and 1506.10.
(DA Congressional Committee with
jurisdiction over the proposal has a
rule requiring both draft and final en-
vironmental impact statements.
(2) The proposal results from a
study process required by statute
(such as those required by the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271
et seq.) and the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. et seq.)).
(3) Legislative approval is sought for
Federal or federally assisted construc-
tion or other projects which the
agency recommends be located at spe-
cific geographic locations. For propos-
als requiring an environmental impact
statement for the acquisition of space
by the General Services 'Administra-
tion, a draft statement shall accompa-
ny the Prospectus or the 1Kb) Report
of Building or the 1Kb) Report of
Building Project Surveys to the Con-
gress, and a final statement shall be
completed before site acquisition.
(4) The agency decides to prepare
draft and final istatements.
(c) Comments on the legislative
statement shall be given to the lead
agency which shall forward them
along with its own responses to the
Congressional committees with juris-
diction.
(d) The Environmental Protection
Agency may reduce the period for
review required by § 1506.10 to insure
that comments; and responses are re-
ceived by the appropriate Congression-
al committee prior to hearings on the
proposal.
§ 1506.9 Filing requirements.
Environmental impact statements
together with comments and responses
shall be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency, attention Office of
Federal Activities (A-104), 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Statements shall be filed with EPA no
earlier than they are also transmitted
to commenting agencies and the
public. EPA shall deliver one copy of
each statement to the Council, which
shall satisfy the requirement of avail-
ability to the President.
§ 1506.10 Timing of agency action.
(a) No decision on the proposed
action shall be made or recorded
under § 1505.2 by a Federal agency
until the later of the following dates:
(1) Ninety (90) days after publica-
tion of the notice described in para-
graph (d) of this section for a draft en-
vironmental impact statement.
(2) Thirty (30) days after publication
of the notice described in paragraph
(d) of this section for a final environ-
mental impact statement.
Provided, Tha.t when an agency has
formally established an internal
appeal process;, through which agen-
cies or the public may take appeals
and make their views known after
preparation of the final environmental
impact statement, and which provides
a real opportunity to alter the deci-
sion, an administratively reviewable
decision in the proposed action may be
made after publication of the notice
described in paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion for a final environmental impact
statement. This means that the period
for appeal, and the period prescribed
by paragraph (a)(2) of this section
may run concurrently. In such a case
the environmental impact statement
shall explain the timing and the pub-
lic's right of appeal.
Provided further, That when an agen-
cy's primary purpose is the protection
of public health and safety, the
agency may, with the approval of the
Council, adopt procedures under
§ 1507.3 providing for a finding to be
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25243
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER
that it is necessary to waive the time
requirement specified in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section to preserve public
health and safety.
Provided further, That when an agen-
cy's primary purpose is the protection
of public health and safety and when
•that agency publishes proposed rules
in the FEDERAL REGISTER for a period
of public review prescribed by a stat-
ute the agency administers, that time
period and the period prescribed
under paragraph
-------
25244
PROPOSED RULES
(2) Specific criteria for and identifi-
cation of those typical classes of
action:
(i) Which normally do require envi-
ronmental impact statements.
(ii) Which normally do not require
either an environmental impact state-
ment or an environmental assessment
(categorical exclusions (§ 1508.4)).
(ill) Which normally require envi-
ronmental assessments but not neces-
sarily environmental impact state-
ments.
(c) Agency procedures may include
specific criteria for providing' limited
exceptions to the provisions of these
regulations for proposed actions that
are specifically authorized under crite-
ria established by an Executive Order
or statute to be kept secret in the in-
terest of national defense or foreign
policy and are in fact properly classi-
fied pursuant to such Executive Order
or statute. Environmental assessments
and environmental impact statements
which address classified proposals may
be safeguarded and restricted from
public dissemination in accordance
with agencies' own regulations applica-
ble to classified information. These
documents may be organized so that
classified portions can be included as
annexes, in order that the unclassified
portions can be made available to the
public.
(d) Agency procedures may provide
for periods of time other than those
presented in § 1506.10 when necessary
to comply with other specific statuto-
ry requirements.
PART 1508—TERMINOLOGY AND INDEX
Sec.
1508.1 Terminology.
1508.2 Act.
1508.3 Affecting.
1508.4 Categorical Exclusion.
1508.5 Cooperating Agency.
1508.6 Council.
1508.7 Cumulative Impact.
1508.8 Effects.
1508.9 Environmental Assessment.
1508.10 Environmental Document.
1508.11 Environmental Impact Statement.
1508.12 Federal Agency.
1508.13 Finding of No Significant Impact.
1508.14 Human Environment.
1508.15 Lead Agency.
1508.16 Legislation.
1508.17 Major Federal Action.
1508.18 Matter.
1508.19 Mitigation.
1508.20 NEPA Process.
1508.21 Notice of Intent.
1508.22 Proposal.
1508.23 Referring Agency.
1508.24 Scope.
1508.25 Significantly.
1508.26 Tiering.
AUTHORITY: NEPA, the Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seg.t. Section 309
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514, Pro-
tection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order 11991, May 24,1977).
§ 1508.1 Terminology.
The terminology of this part shall
be uniform throughout the Federal
Government.
§ 1508.2 Act.
"Act" means the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) which is also re-
ferred to as "NEPA."
§ 1508.3 Affecting.
"Affecting" means will or may have
an effect on.
§ 1508.4 Categorical exclusion.
"Categorical Exclusion" means a cat-
egory of actions which do not individ-
ually or cumulatively have a signifi-
cant effect on the human environment
and which have been found to have no
such effect in procedures adopted by a
Federal agency in implementation of
these regulations (§ 1507.3) and for
which, therefore, neither an environ-
mental assessment nor an environmen-
tal impact is needed. Any such proce-
dures shall provide for extraordinary
circumstances in which a normally ex-
cluded action may have a significant
environmental effect.
§ 1508.5 Cooperating agency.
"Cooperating Agency" means any
Federal agency other than a lead
agency which has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to
any environmental impact involved In
a proposal (or a reasonable alterna-
tive) for legislation or other major
Federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environ-
ment. The selection and responsibil-
ities of a cooperating agency are de-
scribed in §1501.6. A State or local
agency of similar qualifications or,
when the effects are on a reservation,
an Indian Tribe may by agreement
with the lead agency become a cooper-
ating agency.
§ 1508.6 Council.
"Council" means the Council on En-
vironmental Quality established by
Title II of the Act.
§ 1508.7 Cumulative impact.
"Cumulative impact" is the impact
on the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, pres-
ent, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person un-
dertakes such other actions. Cumula-
tive impacts can result from individ-
ually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of
time.
§ 1508.8 Effects.
"Effects" include:
(a) Direct effects, which are caused
by the action and occur at the same
time and place.
(b) Indirect effects, which are caused
by the action and are later in time or
farther removed in distance, but are
still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect
effects may include growth inducing
effects and other effects related to in-
duced changes in the pattern of land
use, population density or growth rate,
and related effects on air and water
and other natural systems, including
ecosystems.
Effects and impacts as used in these
regulations are synonymous. Effects
includes ecological (such as the effects
on natural resources and on the com-
ponents, structures, and functioning
of affected ecosystems), economic,
social, or health, whether direct, indi-
rect, or cumulative. Effects may also
include those resulting from actions
which may have both beneficial and
detrimental effects, even if on balance
the agency believes that the effect will
be beneficial.
§ 1508.9 Environmental assessment
"Environmental Assessment":
(a) Means a public document for
which a Federal agency is responsible
that serves to:
(1) Briefly provide sufficient evi-
dence and analysis for determining
whether to prepare an environmental
impact statement or a finding of no
significant impact.
(2) Aid an agency's compliance with
the Act when no environmental
impact statement is necessary.
(3) Facilitate preparation of such a
statement when one is necessary.
(b) Shall include brief discussions of
the need for the proposal, of alterna-
tives as required by sec. 102(2)(E), of
the environmental impacts of the pro-
posed action and alternatives, and a
listing of agencies and persons consult-
ed. Most environmental impacts of the
proposed action and alternatives, and
a listing of agencies and persons con-
sulted. Most environmental assess-
ments do not exceed several pages in,
length.
§ 1508.10 Environmental document
"Environmental Document" includes
the documents specified in §§ 1508.9,
1508.11, 1508.13 and 1508.21.
§1508.11 Environmental impact statement
"Environmenta.1 Impact Statement"
means a detailed written statement as
required by Sec. 102(2)(C) of the Act.
§ 1508.12 Federal agency.
"Federal agency" means all agencies
of the Federal Government. It does
not mean the Congress, the Judiciary,
or the President, including the per-
formance of staff functions for the
President in his Executive Office.
§ 1508.13 Finding of no significant impact.
"Finding of No Significant Impact"
means a document by a Federal
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25245
agency briefly presenting the reasons
why an action, not otherwise excluded
(§ 1508.4), will not have a significant
effect on the human environment and
for which an environmental impact
statement therefore wiD not be pre-
pared. It shall include the environ-
mental assessment or a summary of it
and shall note any other environmen-
tal documents related to it
(§ 1501.7(a)(5».
S 1508.14 Human environment
"Human Environment" shall be in-
terpreted comprehensively to include
the natural and physical environment
and the interaction of people with
that environment. (See the definition
of "effects" (§1508.8).) This means
that exclusively economic or social ef-
fects are not intended by themselves
to require preparation of an environ-
mental impact statement. When an
environmental impact statement is
prepared -and economic or social and
natural or physical environmental ef-
fects are interrelated, then the envi-
ronmental impact statement will dis-
cuss all of these effects on the human-
environment.
§1508.15 Lead agency.
"Lead Agency" means the agency or
agencies which have prepared or have
taken primary responsibility to pre-
pare the environmental impact state-
ment.
$1508.16 Legislation.
"Legislation" includes a bill or legis-
lative proposal to Congress developed
by or with the significant cooperation
and support of a Federal agency, but
does not include requests for appropri-
ations.1 The test for significant cooper-
ation is whether the proposal is in fact
predominantly that of the agency
rather than another source. Drafting
does not by itself constitute significant
cooperation. Proposals for legislation
include requests for ratification of
treaties. Only the agency which has
primary responsibility for the subject
matter involved will prepare a legisla-
tive environmental impact statement.
S 1508.17 Major Federal action.
"Major Federal action" includes ac-
tions with effects that may be major
and which are potentially subject to
Federal control and responsibility.
Major reinforces but does not have a
meaning independent of significantly
(§ 1508.25). Actions include the circum-
stance where the responsible officials
fail to act and that failure to act is re-
"The Council in consultation with OMB
had been prepared to propose this wording
and $1508.12 for comment. Thereafter
Sierra Club v. Andrus (D.C. Cir. No. 75-1871,
May 15, 1978) was decided. We would appre-
ciate comment on the implications of that
case for these provisions.
viewable by courts or administrative
tribunals under the Administrative
Procedure Act or other applicable law
as agency action. If a Federal program
is delegated or otherwise transferred
to State or local government, unless
Congress intended otherwise, the Fed-
eral agency shall continue to be re-
sponsible for compliance with the Act
and shall insure the preparation of en-
vironmental impact statements if they
would be required but for the delega-
tion or transfer. If the Federal agency
may legally require the State or local
agency to follow an environmental
impact statement process, as a condi-
tion of the delegation or transfer, it
shall do so. If not, the Federal agency
shall prepare the statements (except
as provided in § 1506.5).
(a) Actions include new and continu-
ing activities, including projects and
programs entirely or partly financed,
assisted, conducted, regulated, or ap-
proved by federal agencies; new or re-
vised agency rules, regulations, plans,
policies, or procedures; and legislative
proposals (§§1506.8, 1508.16). Actions
do not include funding assistance
solely in the form of general revenue
sharing funds, distributed under the
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act
of 1072, 31 U.S.C. 1221 et seq., with no
Federal agency control over the subse-
quent use of such funds. Actions do
not iriclude bringing civil or criminal
enforcement actions.
(b) Federal actions tend to fall
within one of the following categories:
(1) Adoption of official policy, such
as rules, regulations, and interpreta-
tions adopted pursuant to the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act, 5 UJS.C. 551 et
seq.; treaties and international conven-
tions or agreements; formal docu-
ments establishing an agency's policies
which will result in or substantially
alter agency programs.
(2) Adoption of formal plans, such as
official documents prepared or ap-
proved by federal agencies which
guide or prescribe alternative uses of
federal resources, upon which future
agency actions will be based.
(3) Adoption of programs, such as a
group of concerted actions to imple-
ment a specific policy or plan; system-
atic and connected agency decisions al-
locating agency resources to imple-
ment a specific statutory program or
executive directive.
(4) Approval of specific projects,
such as construction or management
activities located in a defined geo-
graphic area. Projects include actions
approved by permit or other regula-
tory decision as well as federal and
federally assisted activities.
§1508.18 Matter.
"Matter" includes for purposes of
Part 1504:
(a) With respect to the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, any proposed
legislation, project, action or regula-
tion as those terms are used in Section
309(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7609).
(b) With respect to all other agen-
cies, any proposed major federal
action to which Section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA applies.
§ 1508.19 Mitigation.
"Mitigation" includes:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether
by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting
the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repair-
ing, rehabilitating, or restoring the im-
pacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the
impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the
life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute re-
sources or environments.
§1508.20 NEPA process.
"NEPA process" means all measures
necessary for compliance with the re-
quirements of Section 2 and Title I of
NEPA.
§1508.21 Notice of intent
"Notice of Intent" means a notice
that an environmental impact state-
ment will be prepared and considered.
The notice shall briefly:
(a) Describe the proposed action and
possible alternatives.
(b) Describe the agency's proposed
scoping process including whether,
when, and where any scoping meeting
will be held.
(c) State the name and address of a
person within the agency who can
answer questions about the proposed
action and the environmental impact
statement.
§1508.22 Proposal.
"Proposal" refers to that stage in
the development of an action when an
agency subject to the Act has a goal
and is actively considering one or more
alternative means of accomplishing
that goal and the effects can be mean-
ingfully evaluated. Preparation of an
environmental impact statement on a
proposal should be timed (§ 1502.5) so
that the final statement may be com-
pleted in time for the statement to be
included in any recommendation or
report on the proposal. A proposal
may exist in fact as well as by agency
declaration that one exists.
§ 1508.23 Referring agency.
"Referring agency" means the feder-
al agency which has referred any
matter to the Council after a determi-
nation that the matter is unsatisfac-
tory from the standpoint of public
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
25246
PROPOSED RULES
health or welfare or environmental
Quality.
§ 1508.24 Scope.
'Scope consists of the range of ac-
tions, alternatives, and impacts to be
considered in an environmental impact
statement. The scope of an individual
statement may depend on its relation-
ships to other statements (§§ 1502.20
and 1508.26). In scoping environmen-
tal impact statements agencies shall
consider 3 types of actions, 3 types of
alternatives, and 3 types of impacts.
They include:
(a) Actions (other than unconnected
single actions) which may be:
(1) Connected actions, which means
that they are closely related and
therefore should be discussed in the
same impact statement. Actions are
connected if they:
(i) Automatically trigger other ac-
tions which may require environmen-
tal impact statements.
(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless
other actions are taken previously or
simultaneously.
(iii) Are interdependent parts of a
larger action and depend on the larger
action for their justification.
(2) Cumulative actions, which when
viewed with other proposed actions
have cumulatively significant impacts
and should therefore be discussed in
the same impact statement.
(3) Similar actions, which when
viewed with other reasonably foresee-
able or proposed agency actions, have
similarities that provide a basis for
evaluating "Eheir environmental conse-
quences together, such as common
timing or geography. An agency may
wish to analyze these actions in the
same impact statement. It should do
so when the best way to assess ade-
quately the combined impacts of simi-
lar actions or reasonable alternatives
to such actions is to treat them in a
single impact statement.
(b) Alternatives, which include: (1)
No action alternative. (2) Other rea-
sonable courses of actions. (3) Mitiga-
tion measures (not in the proposed
action).
(c) Impacts, which may be: (1)
Direct. (2) Indirect. (3) Cumulative.
§1508.25 Significantly.
"Significantly" as used in NEPA re-
quires considerations of both context
and intensity.
(a) Context This means that the sig-
nificance of an action must be ana-
lyzed in several contexts such as soci-
ety as a whole (global, national), the
affected region, the affected interests,
and the locality. Significant varies
with the setting of the proposed
action. For instance, in the case of a
site-specific action, significance would
usually depend upon the effects in the
locale rather than in the world as a
whole. Both short- and long-term ef-
fects are relevant.
(b) Intensity. This refers to the se-
verity of impact. Responsible officials
must bear in mind that more than one
agency may make decisions about par-
tial aspects of a major action. The fol-
lowing should be considered in evalu-
ating intensity:
(1) Impacts that may be both benefi-
cial and adverse. A significant effect
may exist even if the Federal agency
believes that on balance the effect will
be beneficial.
(2) The degree to which the pro-
posed action affects public health or
safety.
(3) Unique characteristics of the geo-
graphic area such as proximity to his-
toric sites, park lands, prime farm
lands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers,
or ecologically critical areas.
(4) The degree to which the effects
on the quality of the human environ-
ment are likely to be highly controver-
sial.
(5) The degree to which the possible
effects on the human environment are
highly uncertain or involve unique or
unknown risks.
(6) The degree to which the action
may establish a precedent for future
actions with significant effects or rep-
resents a decision in principle about a
future consideration.
(7) Whether the action is related to
other actions with individually insig-
nificant but cumulatively significant
impacts. Significance exists if it is rea-
sonable, to anticipate a cumulatively
significant impact on the environment.
Significance cannot be avoided by
terming an action temporary or by
breaking it down into small compo-
nent parts.
(8) Whether the action may have a
significant adverse effect on an area or
site listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic
Places or may cause loss or destruction
of significant scientific, cultural, or
historical resources.
(9) Whether the action may have a
significant adverse effect on the habi-
tat or an endangered or threatened
species that has been determined to be
critical under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973.
(10) Whether the action threatens a
violation of Federal, State, or local law
or requirements Imposed for the pro-
tection of the environment.
$1508.26 Tiering.
"Tiering" refers to the coverage of
general matters in broader environ-
mental impact statements (such as na-
tional program or policy statements)
with subsequent narrower statements
or environmental analyses (such as re-
gional or basinwide program state-
ments or ultimately site-specific state-
ments) incorporating by reference the
gereral discussions and concentrating
solely on the issues specific to the
statement subsequently prepared.
Tiering is appropriate when the se-
quence of statements or analyses is:
(a) From a program, plan, or policy
environmental impact statement to a
program, plan, or policy statement or
analysis of lesser scope or to a site-spe-
cific statement or analysis.
(b) From an environmental impact
statement on a specific action at an
early stage (such as need and site se-
lection) to a supplement (which is pre-
ferred) or a subsequent statement or
analysis at a later stage (such as
design detail and environmental miti-
gation). Tiering in such cases is appro-
priate when it helps the lead agency to
focus on the issues which are ripe for
decision and exclude from considera-
tion issues already decided or not yet
ripe.
INDE
Act.......... «..
Action
Action-forcing...
Adoption......._...
Affected Environment...
Affecting ..........................
Agency Authority..........
Agency Capability
Agency Compliance ,
Agency Procedures
Agency Responsibility
Alternative!
Appendices................
Apply NEPA Early In Proc-
Categorlcal Exclusion
Circulating of Environmen-
tal Impact Statement. •
Classified Information ...„__.
jCleanAirAct
Combining Documents.
Commenting..
Consultation Requirement..
Context
Cooperating Agency...
Cost-Benefit
Council on Environmental
Quality.
Cover Sheet....
Cumulative Sheet.
Dedsionmaklnr..
Decision point!—_
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Early Application of HEPA-
Economlc Effect!. *
Effective Date :..
Effect!
Emergende! ,,,_ „„,„',. „
Endangered Species Aet__.__
Energy »».««.
Enviromacntal ^
1508.2
1508.17.1508.34
1500.1.1502.1
1500.4, 1500.5(h),
1508.3
150J.l. 1502.16
1502.3,1508.3
1500.8
1501.2(a>, 1507.2
1507.1
1505.1,1507.3
1508.5
1501.2(0,1502.2,
1502.10(e). 1502.14.
1505.1(e>, 1507.2(d),
1508.24(b)
1502.UXk>. 1502.18
1501.2
1500.4(p). 1500.5HC).
1501.4
1500.4(0). 1500.5(1).
1508.4
1502.19.1503.1.
1503 A 1503.3,
1503.4,1508.8(1)
1500.4(k>. ISOOJKg).
1501.7(aX6).
1502.26
1508.25(a>
1500.5(b>, 1501.Kb),
1501.5(O. 1501.5(f),
1501.8,1503.1(aXl>.
1501.2,1508.»b>.
1508.5
1502.23
1501.5(e>,
1501.6(fU502.9(CX4>.
1504.1.1504.2.
1504.3.1508.9.
1508.11.1507.3.
1508.8,1508.23
1502.10(a). 1502.11
1508.7, 1508.24(a).
1508.24(0
1505.1.1506.1
1505.1(b>
1508.24(»>
1502.9(a)
1501.2
1508.8
1506.12
1502.15.1508.8
1506.11
1503L25.1508.25(bX»)
1502.15(e)
1501.3.1501.4(b).
1501.4(0.
1508.2(bX4). 1508.9.
1508.10
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 197*
-------
PROPOSED RULES
25247
Environmental Conse-
quences.
Environmental Consultation
Requirements.
Environmental Documents...
Environmental Impact
Statement.
Environmental
Agency.
Protection
Environmental Review Re-
quirements.
Expediter..................................
Federal Agency ......................I*
Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
Finding of No Significant
Impact
Fish and Wildlife Coordina-
tion Act.
Format for Environmental
Impact Statement.
Freedom of Information Act.
Further Guidance ...................
General Services Adminis-
tration.
Geographic..
Graphics......
Handbook ............... ..................
Human Environment..............
Impacts „.., .......... , ............ . ........
Implementing the Decision...
Incomplete or Unavailable
Information.
Incorporation by Reference..
Index .........................................
Indian Tribes . --------------------------
Intensity ........... ........................
Interdisciplinary Prepara-
tion.
Untied
1502 10(f) 1502 15
1500.4(10, 1500.5(g),
1501 7(a>(6)
1502.25
1608.10
1500.4. 1501.4(0.
1501.7, 1502.1.
1502.2, 1502.3.
1502 4 1502 5
1502 6 1502 7
1502 8 1502 9
1502.10, 1502.11.
1502 12 1502 13
1502 14 1502 15
1502 16 1502 17
1502 18 1502 19
1502.20, 1502.21,
1502 22 1502 23
1502.24. 1502.25.
1506.2(b>(4), 1506.3,
1506 8 1508 11
1602 ll(f) 1504 1
1604.3, 1506.7(0,
1506 8(bX4)
1506 8(d) 1506 9
1506 10 1508 18(a)
1500.4(k>, 1500.5(g),
1501 7(aX8
1508 25)
1501.8(0X2)
1508.12
1506.9
1502.9(b), 1503.1,
1503.4(b)
1500.4(q). 1500.5(1),
1501.4(6). 1508.13
1502.25
1502.10
1506.6
1506.7
1502.4(cX2)
1606 8(bX3)
1502.4(cXl)
15028
1506.7(a)
1502.3, 1508.14
1508.8, 1608.24(0
1505.3
1502.22
1500.4(1), 1502.21
1502.100)
1501.6, 1501.7(aXr)
1508. 25(b)
1502.6, 1503.17
INDEX -CM
Judicial Review
Legislation
Limitation on Action During
NEPA Process.
Major Federal Action
Mandate
Matter
Mitigation
Monitoring
National Historic Preserva-
tion Act.
National Register of Histori-
cal Places.
Natural or Depletable Re-
Need for Action
Non-Federal Sponsor
Notice of Intent
OMB Circular A-19
OMB Circular A-95
102 Monitor
Policy
Program Environmental
Impact Statement.
Programs
tlnued
1506.1
1501.5(b), 1506.2
1500.3
1500.5(c), 1501. Kc),
1501.5. 1501.6.
1501.7. 1501.8.
1504.3, 1506.2(b)(4),
1506.10(6), 1508.15
1500.5U), 1502.3,
1506 8, 1508.16,
1508.17(a)
1506.1
1502.10(h), 1502.17
1500.4(n>, 1500.5(h),
1501.2(d)(2),
1501.5(b), 1501.5(d),
1501.6. 1501.7(a)(l),
1501.8(c),
1502.15(0,
1503.1(a)(2),
1506.2(b),
1506.6(b)(3), 1508.5,
1508.17
1502.3. 1508.17
1500.3
1504.1, 1504.2, 1504.3,
1508.18
1502.24
1502.14(8). 1502.15(1),
1505.2(0, 1505.3,
1508.19
1505.2(C), 1505.3
1502.25
1508.25(b)(8)
1502.15(1)
1502.10(d), 1502.13
1508.20
1501.2(d>
1501.7, 1508.21
1506.8
1505.2, 1506.6(b)(3>(l)
1506.6(bX2>.
1506 7(c)
1506.12
1500.4(a), 1501.7(b).
1502.7
1502.4(a), 1503.5,
1506.3, 1508.17
1500.2, 1502.4(b),
1508.17(a)
1500.4(1), 1502.4,
1502.20, 1508.17
1502.4, 1508.17(b>
INDEX -Continued
Projects 1508.17
Proposal 1502.4, 1502.5, 1506.8,
1508.22
Proposed Action 1502.10(e), 1502.14
Public Health and Welfare.... 1504.1
Public Involvement 1501.4(6),
1503.1(a)(3>, 1S06.6
Purpose 1500.1, 1501.1, 1802.1,
1504.1
Purpose of Action 1502 10(d) 1502.13
Record of Decision 1505.2, 1506.1
Referrals 1504.1, 1504.2, 1504.3,
1506.3(c)
Referring Agency „ 1504.1, 1504.2, 1504.3
Response to Comments 1503.4
Scientific Accuracy 1502 24
Scope 1502.4(a). 1502.9(a),
1508.24
Scoping 1500. 4(b), 1501. l(d),
1501.4(d). 1501.7,
1502.9(a), 1506.8(a)
Significantly 1502.3, 1508.25
Similar „ 1508.24
Small Business Associations.. 1506.6(b)(3Xv>
Social Effects 1508.8
Specificity of Comments 1500.4(1). 1503.3
State and Local 1500.4(n>, 1500. 5(h),
1501.2(d)(2),
1501.5(b). 1501.5(d),
1501.7(a)(l),
1501.8(c),
1502.15(c),
1503.1(a)(2),
1506.2(b),
1506.6(b)(3), 1508.5.
1508.17
State and Local Fiscal As- 1508.17(a)
sistance Act.
Summary , 1500.4(h), 1502. 10(b),
1502.12
Supplements to Environ- 1502.9(c)
mental Impact Statements.
Table of Contents 1502.10(0
Technological Development.. 1502.4(0(3)
Tiering 1500.4(1), 1502.4(d),
1502.20, 1508.26
Time Limits 1500 5(e), 1501.1(6),
1501.7(b)(2), 1501.8
Timing 1502.4, 1502.5,
1506.10
Treaties 1508.16
When to Prepare an Envi- 1501.3
ronment Impact State-
ment.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act... 1506.8(b)(2)
Wilderness Act 1506.8(b)(2)
Writing 1502.8
[PR Doc. 78-15700 Filed 6-8-78; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. HI-FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
-------
APPENDIX 15
LIST OF ATTENDEES AT EIS MEETING DECEMiiKR 7-!:, 1977
NAME
Philip P. Sayre
Bill Rankin
Robert Beccurs
T. H. Row
Warren Zurn
Ronald L. Ballard
Wayne Hibbitts
G. W. Knighton
Joseph R. Binder
C. R. Boston
ORGANIZATION
Regional Environmental and
Energy Officer
Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare
50 Seventh St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Engineer
Department of Energy
1655 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Energy Conservation Specialist
Department of Energy
1655 Peachtree St., S. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Hd., Environmental Impact Section
Energy Div., Oak Ridge Nat'l. Lab
P. 0. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Energy Resource Development
Specialist, Department of
Energy
1655 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 3C3C9
Chief, Environ. Specialists Br.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Health Physicist
Department of Energy
Federal Bldg.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Chief, Environmental Projects Br.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Bethesda, Maryland 21200
Chief, Environment Branch
Rural Electrification Adm.
South Agriculture Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Project Manager, Energy Division
Oak Ridge Nat'l. Lab
P. 0, Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
TELEPHONE NO.
Com. 881-3754
FTS 245-3754
Com. 881-4463
FTS 257-4463
Com. 881-2526
Com. 615-483-8611
Ext. 31423
FTS 850-1423
Com. 881-4463
FTS 257-4463
FTS 492-7209
Com. 615-483-8611
Ext. 34175
FTS 850-4175
FTS 492-4824
Com. 447-3446
Com. 615-483-8611
Ext. 36107
FTS 850-6107
-------
Harry G. Arnold
Dr. Antohony Duorak
T. M. Bryan
James P. Iverson
David H. Densmore
R. H. Talley
Robert Forley
David P. Van Leuven
George Osborne
John F. Sullivan, Jr.
Geotheraal/Solar Environmental
Project Manager
Oak Ridge National Lab
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Project Leader
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass
Argonne, Illinois 60439
Environmental Coordinator
Federal Highway Admin.
Georgia Division
1422 W. Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Coordinator
Federal Highway Adm.
P. 0. Box 1079
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Development Engineer
Federal Highway Adm.
1422 W. Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Location Engineer
Federal Hignway Adm.
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Engineer
Federal Highway Adm.
1720 Peachtree Rd.,N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Planning & Research Engineer
Federal Highway Adm.
P. 0. Box 1079
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Environment Program Manager
Federal Highway Adm.
1720 Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Asst. Div. Administrator
Federal Highway Adm.
P. 0. Box 1079
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Com. 615-483-8611
Ext. 3-1423
FTS 850-1423
Com. 312-739-7711
Ext. 4897
FTS 388-4897
Com. 881-4758
FTS 257-4758
Com. 224-8111
FTS 946-4326
FTS 257=4758
Com. 881-4791
FTS 257-4791
Com. 881-4067
FTS 257-4067
Com. 224-8111
FTS 946-4326
4067
Com. 224-8111
FTS 946-4326
-------
Claude R. Moore, Jr., MAI
Hugh B. Hicks
Claude Terry, Manager
Luther S. Winsor
Claude Reams
Fred Klimas
James H. Lee
Deniae P. Meridith
Roy Almdale
John Fischer
Real Estate Officer
U. S. Postal Service
Federal Annex, Rm. 416
Atlanta, Georgia 30304
Realty Management and
Acquisition Specialist
U, S. Postal Service
Federal Annex Bldg., Rm. 416
Atlanta, Georgia 30304
Claude Terry & Associates
2220 Parklake Dr., #330
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
Chief, Resource Area Studies
Division
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 Intnmat'l Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30033
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 Internal-. :l Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Regional Environmental Officer
U. S. Department of Interior
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land Management
7981 Eastern Avenue
Silver Springs, Md. 20902
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Com. 242-5243
FTS 221-5243
Com. 221-5243
FTS 242-5243
Com. 938-1490
Com. 221-4778
FTS 242-4778
Com. 221-6928
Com. 221-4778
FTS 242-4778
Com. 221-4524
FTS 242-4524
Com. 301-427-7540
FTS 427-7540
Com. 221-4711
FTS 224-4711
Com. 221-4711
FTS 242-4711
-------
David S. Hamlltpn
Steven E. Price
William C. Bellinger
Alan H. Epstein
Thomas D. Sims
Louise Franklin
Robert J. Hunter
Robert Flanders
R. Michael Hartman
Dr. Roy 0. Ball
Gerald Bonn
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Environmental Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Recreation Planner
U. S. Dept. of Interior
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Manager, S.E. Regional Office
Environmental Research & Tech-
nology, Inc.
296 Interstate No.
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Community Planner
AFRCE-ER
526 Title Bldg.
30 Pryor St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Sr. Planner
Claude Terry & Associates
2220 Parklake Dr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
Aquatic Ecologist
Claude Terry & Associates
2220 Parklake Dr., Suite )30
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
Biologist
Geo-Marine, Inc.
777 South Central Exp. #2G
Richardson, Texas 75080
Manager, Envirosphere Co.
302 Technology Park
Atlanta-Norcross, Georgia 30072
Asst. Prof., Univ. of Tenn.
Dept. of Civil Eng.
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916
Biologist
Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc.
2000 Clearview Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
Com. 221-6928
FTS 242-6928
Com. 221-6928
FTS 258-6928
Com. 221-4778
Com. 955-3121
Com. 221-6821
FTS 245-6821
Com. 938-1490
Com. 938-1490
Com. 214-234-2722
Com. 447-6639
Com. 615-974-5187
Com. 455-8555
-------
George E. Bowen
Howard E. Lawlaj:
H. E. Zittel
Jane Culpepper
Dr. Marty Wanielista
Leonard R. Teel
Richard Briefmaser
Kirk Holland
Kenneth W. Prest, Jr.
Hal Maggied
Joshua I. Smith
Asst. Prof., Univ. of Term.
1515 Cumberland Ave.
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916
Asst. Curator of Education
Atlanta Zoological Park
800 Cherokee Ave., S. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30315
Project Manager
Union Carbide
P. 0. Box X
ORNL
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
President
Georgia Animal Welfare Alliance
7340 Twin Branch Rd., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Prof., Florida Tech. Univ.
College of Engineering
Orlando, Florida 32809
Reporter
Atlanta Journal
P. 0. Box 4689
Atlanta, Georgia 30302
Engineer
Jacksonville Electric Authority
233 W. Duval St.
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Dept. Director
Radian Corp
Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78700
President
The Environmental Licensing
Group, Inc.
P. 0. Box 7151
Pensacola, Florida 32504
Senior Policy Analyst/Region-
al Economist
Envirosphere Company
145 Technology Park/Atlanta
Norcross, Georgia 30092
Vice President
Herner & Company
2100 M St., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20037
Com. 974-5227
Com. 622-5115
Com. 615-483-8611
Ext. 3-1423
FTS 850-1423
Com. 394-3609
Com. 305-275-2155
or 2841
Com. 572-5361
Com. 904-633-4513
Com. 512-454-4797
Com. 904-433-0968
Com. 449-6639
Com. 202-293-2600
-------
Charles Williams
Ben L. Smith
Paul Edens
Robin L. Fletcher
Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.
Paul G. Stough
R. M. Gatewood
Robert E. Kearse
Robert L. Wong
Peter Malphurs
Com. 350-5276, 51
FTS 350-5276, 51
Com. 615-741-3653
Environmental Coordinator
U. S. Coast Guard
51 S. W. 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130
Administrator
Environmental Planning Div.
Tenn. Dept. of Transportation
516 Doctor's Bldg.
Nashville, Tennessee 37200
Director, Research & Planning Com. 741-3339(615)
Tennessee Dept. of Transportation
444 Doctor's1 Bldg.
Nashville, Tennessee 37200
Environmental Specialist
Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
2562 Executive Center Circle E.
Tallahassee, Florida 32300
Administrator
Power Plant Siting
Fla. Dept. of Envir. Reg.
2562 Executive Center Circle E.
Tallahassee, Florida 32300
Environmental Coordinator
Alabama Highway Department
11 S. Union St.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Asst. Surveys & Plans Engineer
Alabama Highway Department
11 S. Union St.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Land Planner
Veterans Administration
730 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Chief,Envir. Planning Div,
U.S. Air Force Regional Civil
Engineer - Eastern Region
AFRCE-ER, 526 Title Bldg.
30 Pryor St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Asst. Chief, CAB
Department of Transportation
Fulton County Airport
65 Aviation Circle
Atlanta, Georgia 30336
Com. 904-487-1580
Com. 904-487-1580
Com. 832-5593
Com. 832-5571
Com. 404-881-2930
FTS 257-2930
Com. 221-6776
FTS 242-6776
696-4634
-------
U. S.
345 CQURTLANE)
ATLANTA, GfORfllA 3Q308
PROTECTION AGENCY
St>eppar4 N. Moore
Gerald T, Miller
Carolyn
Willie Karri*
Mark Thompson
Christine, Beachy
Mary A. V*ale.
Carl R. p12
257-3012
881-7458
257-7458
881-4450
257-4450
881-7458
257-7458
881-7458
257-7458
881-2017
257-2017
881-7458
257-7458
-------
8
U. S. EPA (Cont'd)
Patricia Rogencranz
Lib rarian
Thomas A. Strickland EIS Review Coordinator (Air)
Hagan Thompson
Robert B. Howard
C. L. Wakamo
Robert C. Cooper
John P. Herrmann
Ronald J. Mikulak
Andrea J. Eberhardt
T. Dale Lewis
Clara DeLay
Stephanie Lankford
Matthew J, Robbins
E. T. Heinen
Asst. Dir., Public Affaiis
Chief, EIS Preparation Section
Chief, Radiation Branch
EIS Project Officer
Agent
EIS Project Office.
Project Office, Phosphate Unit
Clerk-typist
EIS Specialist
EIS Assistant
Director, Civil Rights
Chief, Ecological Review Er.
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
Com.
FTS
881-4216
257-4216
881-3286
257-3286
881-3004
257-3004
881-7458
257-7458
881-3067
257-3067
881-7458
257-7458
881-7458
257-7458
881-7458
257-7458
881-7458
257-7458
881-7458
257-7458
881-7458
257-7458
881-7458
257-7458
881-3053
257-3053
881-2643
257-2643
-------
C. L. Irwin
C. M. "Tony" Krsmer
Robert Cook*
D. H. White
William Stoken
Ben A. Cook
W. J. Davenport
Russell M. 0. Jacobsen
Robert Lunsford
Jesse P. Warders
Richard C. Becker
Environmental Adraistrator
Florida Dept. of Transportation
Haydon Burns Bldg.
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
F&W Biologist
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
17 Executive Park Dr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Endangered Species Specialist
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Dept.
17 Executive Park Dr., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Liason Officer, Georgia
U. S. Bureau of Mines
Rm. 431
19 M. L. King, Jr., Dr., S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Environmental Officer
US Dept. HUD, Room 602
1801 Main St.(324 Pittsdalne Rd,
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Environmental Officer
HUD Area Office
P. 0. Box 1044
Louisville, Kentucky 40201
Environmental Office
DHUD
415 N. Edgeworth St.
Greensboro, N. C.
Environmental Officer
HUD Atlanta RO
1371 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Officer
HUD
15 S. 20th St.
Birmingham, Alabama 35225
Deputy Area Director
DHUD
601 S. Floyd St.
Louisville, Kentucky 40201
Environmental Officer
DHUD Area Office
1111 Northshore Dr.
Knoxvllle, Tennessee 37919
Com. 487-1435
Com. 881-4781
FTS 257-4781
Com. 881-4291
FTS 257-4291
Com. 821-6204
FTS 242-6204
Com. 803-765-5595
FTS 677-5595
)
Com. 502-582-5251
FTS 352-5251
FTS 699-5377
Com. 851-3521
FTS 257-3521
Com. 254-1619
FTS 229-1619
Com. 502-582-5251
FTS 352-5251
Com. 615-637-9300
Ext. 1263
FTS 854-1263
-------
10
Jody B. WilHqms
Harry Walls
James V. Spann
Ivar Iveraon
Buddy E. Arbuckle
John Ogden
Carol Slipley
Bill Wisenbaker
John C. Cole
M. E. Cribbs
Environmental Aide
DHUD
1371 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Officer
DHUD
230 Peachtree St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Environmental Officer
DHUD, Atlanta Area Office
230 Peachtree St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Environmental Standards Officer
DHUD
1375 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Officer
DHUD, Jax. Area Office
661 Riverside Ave.
Jacksonville, Florida 32217
Environmental Protection Spec.
Economic Development Aden.
1365 Peachtree St., Ste. 700
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Protection Spec.
Economic Development Ad,n.
1365 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Protection Spec.
Economic Development Ad,n.
1365 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Regional Environmentalist
EDA - U. S. Dept. of Commerce
1365 Peachtree St., N. 35.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Soil Conservationist
USDA - SCS
P. 0. Box 610
Jackson, Mississippi 39J05
Com. 881-3541
FTS 257-3541
Com. 221-6629
FTS 242-6629
Com. 221-6629
FTS 242-6629
Com. 881-3521
FTS 257-3521
Com. 904-791-2610
FTS 946-2610
Com. 881-7352
FCS 257-7352
Com. 881-7316
FTS 257-7316
Com. 881-7158
FTS 257-7158
Com. 881-7667
Firs 257-7667
Com. 601-969-4335
FTS 490-4335
-------
11
L. Pete Heard
Richard GJ.edJiJ.il
James M. Kesecker
Danny Averett
Arnold M. Snowden
John P. Burt
Ronald C. Page
John J. Garrett
Archie Weeks
T. Allan Heard
Gerald Montgomery
Environmental Coordinacor
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 1208
Gainesville, Florida 32602
Soil Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 1208
Gainesville, Florida 32602
Staff Leader (Planning)
Soil Conservation Service
240 Stoneridge Dr.
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Sanitary Engineer
Soil Conservice Service
P. 0. Box 610
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Watershed Planning Specialist
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 6567
Fort Worth, Texas 76115
Sanitary Eng./Env. Specialist
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 6567
Fort Worth, Texas 76115
Asst. State Conservationist,
Water Resources
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 832
Athens, Georgia 30601
RB-WP Staff Leader
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 27307
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Civil Engineer
Soil Conservation Service
Lexington, Kentucky 40504
Asst. State Conservationist
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
333 Waller Ave.
Lexington, Kentucky 40504
Biologist
Soil Conservation Servicr
675 V« S. Courthouse
Nashville, Tennessee 37208
+ 377SV12
Com. 765-5684
FTS 677-5684
Com. 601-969-4339
FTS 490-4339
FTS 334-5429
334-5431
FTS 334-5371
Com. 546-2276
FTS 250-2276
Com. 919-755-4527
FTS 672-4527
Com. 606-237-2750
FTS 355-2750
Com. 606-233-2747
FTS 355-2747
Com. 251-5873
FTS 852-5874
-------
12
John M. SafJcif, Jr. (Marc)
Ray Swicegood
Bobby Reeves
Pat Pickering
Roger D.
Jack E. Kedei
Frank £. Chriap
St. Clair
William C. Holiday
Glen Coffee
Resource Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
675 U. S. Courthouse
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Watershed Staff Leader
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 311
Auburn, Alabama 36830
Asst. State Cons, for
Water Resources
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 311
Auburn, Alabama 36830
Administrative Asst.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
30 Pryor Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Engineer
U. :S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ohio Riv^r Div.
550 Main Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Chief, Env. Mgmt. Branch
Corps of Engineers
Ohio River Div.
575 E. Main St.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Chief, Env. Analysis Section
U. S. Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 59
Louisville, Kentucky 40201
Chief, Env. Analysis Branch
Vicksburg Dist., Corps of Eng.
P. 0. Box 60
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Chief, Project Planning
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Huntington District
502 8th St.
Huntington, West Virginia 25703
Biologist
US Army Corps of Engineers
Env. Studies & Eval. Sect.
Mobile, Alabama 36628
Com. 615-251-7241
FTS 852-7241
Com. 821-8070
FTS 534-4542
FTS 534-4542
Com., 221-6711
FTS 242-6711
FTS 684-3075
FTS 678-3008
Com. 502-582-5696
FTS 352-5696
Com. 636-1311
Rcy 655
FTS 542-4544
Com. 304-529-5644
FTS 924-5644
Com. 205-690-2729
FTS 534-2729
-------
13
Idtrin Keppnar
Charles H. Harria
Moray L. Harrall
Garald L. Ataar, PhD
Michael K. Aahar
Paul Bradlay
Maurice Siapaon
Frad R. Horn
Ray Hedrick
Thoaaa J. O'Mail
Com. 205-690-2584
FTS 534-2584
Com. 636-1311-285
FTS 8-946-3615
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile District
Mobile, Alabama 36623
Chief, Env. Analysis Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 80
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Chief, Env. Section
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville, District
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Biologist
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
P. 0. Box 4970
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
General Engineer
U. S. Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Bx. 2127
Huntington, West Virginia 25721 Com. 527-5207
Civil Engineer Com. 690-2723
Corps of Engineers, Mobile Dist. FTS 534-2723
P. 0. Box 2288
Mobile, Alabama 36628
FTS 946-3453
Biologist
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37200
Civil Engineer, Operations Br.
S. Atlantic Div., Cof E
30 Pryor St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Com. 615-251-5181
FTS 852-5181
Com. 221-6744
FTS 242-6744
Ecologist, Planning Br. Com. 615-251-5011
Corps of Engineers, Nashville Dist. FTS 852-5011
P. 0. Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202
Water Resources Planner
U. S. Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 2127
Huntington, West Virginia 25721
FTS 529-5639
-------
14
Herbert T. DeRlgt
Durley McLarty
Andrew V. Grosso
Stephen J. Morrison
Kenneth E. MeIntyre
Robert Montgomery
Rudy E. Stlne
A. Elaine Gilbert
Robert Taylor
Supervisor, Biologists FTS
Corps of Engineers, Savannah Dist.
200 E. Julian St.
Savannah, Georgia 31402
248-8371
Supervisor, Civil Engineers
Chief Plan Formulation Sect.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
668 Clifford Davis Fed. Bldg.
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Chief, Env. Resources Sect.
Corps of Engineers
Memphis District
668 Federal Bldg.
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Environmentalist
U. S. Corps of Engineers
Charleston District
126 Folly Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Brigadier General, Div. Eng.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
30 Pryor St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Sanitary Engineer
U. S. Army Forces Command
Attn: AFEN-EQ
Ft. McPherson, Georgia 30330
Chief, Env. Control Office
U. S. Army - Ft. McPherson
Ft. McPherson, Georgia 30330
AF2K-FE-C
Realty Specialist
General Services Administration
1776 Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Protection Spec.
National Park Service
1895 Phoenix Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30349
Com. 521-3831
FTS 222-3831
Com. 901-521-3857
FTS 222-3857
Com. 577-4171
FTS 677-4259
Com. 221-6711
ITS 242-6711
Com. 752-3375
2195
Com. 752-3702
FTS AV 588-3702
Com. 881-7222
ITS 257-7222
Com. 996-2520
-------
15
Bennie C. Ke«l
Nicholas C. Yost
W. S. Tucker
Kleob Loflin
Floyd Hardy
Tom Barbar
Charlotte Abrams
Randy F. Powers
Robert Howarth
Mary Anne Neville
Chief, Interagency
Archaeological Services
National Park Service
1895 Phoenix Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30349
General Counsel
Council on Env. Quality
722 Jackson PI., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Manager, Env. Affairs
Florida Power & Light Co.
P. 0. Box 013100
Miami, Florida 33101
Plan Representative
Urban Mass Trans. Adm.
1770 Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Chief, Env. Analysis Bureau
Georgia Dept. of Transportation
2 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Program Planner
Georgia Office of Energy
Resources
270 Washington St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Geologist
Georgia Dept. of Natural
Resources, Geological Div.
19 M. L. King, Jr. Dr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Recreation Planner
Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources
Parks & Historic Sites Div. 707-4
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Wildlife Biologist
Ga. Game & Fish Div.
Gainesville, Georgia 30501
Com.
996-2520
Ext. 346
FTS 260-9346
Com.
FTS
202-633-7032
ii ti
Com. 305-552-4060
Com.
FTS
881-3948
257-3948
Com. 696-4634
Com. 656-5176
Com. 656-3214
Com. 656-7092
Com. 532-5304
Biologist/Planner Com.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
656-5164
-------
16
Sam Williams
Dan Simpkins
Nancy L. Levin
Gail Morgan Thimmis
Sam Chapman
Ray Siewert
Jack Wolfe
Ted Kaufmann
Robert F. Williams
Hans Raum
Asst. Administrator
Georgia State Clearinghouse
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Archeological Resource
Reviewer
Georgia DNR/HPS
Room 103,Martha Moore Hall
West Georgia College
Carrolton, Georgia 30117
Asst. Planner
Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Environmental Reviewer
Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S. S.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Resource Conservationist
Dept. of Natural Resources
Soil Conservation Service
Rt. 4, Box 527
Gainesville, Georgia 30501
Review Coordinator
Con. 656-3855
834-6835
FTS 232-1436
Com. 656-4810
Com. 656-2840
Con. 656-5164
FTS 250-2114
Com. 656-5162
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Group Leader
Wilderness & Sp. Areas
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Coordinator
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Rm. 713
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Environmental Coordinator
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Director, Planning & Budget
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Com. 881-4278
FTS 256-4663
Com. 881-2242
FTS 257-2242
Com. 881-2242
-------
17
Wade B. Rlggs
John M. Derapsey
George Altman
W. H. Ballew
Bill Harris
Tom Wojtulik
Sam H. Calhoun
Donald S. Stinnett
David Gengozian
Eric L. Meyer
David Hoglund
Chief, Airport Planning
Federal Aviation Adm.
Box 18621
Memphis, Tennessee 38138
Chief, Airports Dist. Office
Federal Aviation Adm.
Box 18621
Memphis, Tennessee 38138
Chief, Planning Section
Airports District Office
Federal Aviation Adm.
1568 Willingham Dr.
College Park, Georgia 30337
Planning Engineer
Federal Aviation Adm.
1568 Willingham Dr.
College Park, Georgia 30337
Flood Insurance Adm.
Federal Insurance Adm.
1371 Peachtree St. N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
FTS 521-3495
Com. 901-521-3495
FTS 222-3495
Com. 763-7631
FTS 246-7631
Com. 763-7631
FTS 246-7631
Com. 881-2391
FTS 257-2391
Assessment and Compliance Staff Com. 615-755-3148
TVA - Environmental Planning FTS 852-755-3148
272 401B
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Environmental Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
272 401 Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Power Supply Engineer
TVA
415 Power Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Environmental Engineer
TVA
303 Power Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Hydrologist
U. S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia 22092
Environmental Scientist
U. S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia 22070
Com. 615-755-3147
FTS 854-3147
Com. 755-2737
Com. 615-755-3331
FTS 854-3331
Com. 703-860-7556
FTS 928-7556
Com. 703-860-6464
FTS 928-6464
-------
18
Rale Booth
Robert Reiner
R. L. Ramsey
Joe Guthrie
Ozzie Gray
Planner
CARCOG/SETDD
413 James Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37415
Economist
CARCOG/SETDD
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
Regional Land Use Planner
CARCOG/SETDD
735 Broad St.
423 James Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
Planning Director
CARCOG/SETDD
413 James Bldg.
735 Broad St.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
Coordinator, Env. Assessment
N. C. Dept. of Natural Resources
and Contra. Dev.
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Com,. 615-266-5781
Com., 615-266-5781
Com. 615-266-5781
Com. 615-266-5781
Com. 919-733-2955
C. '™~<*bAXA^ <*> <
C
COlA^-^ \
A
D
2 16
S
*U.S.GOVERNMENTPRINnNGOFnCE:1978-7't7-'+»t6/ 6 077 REGION NO. 4
------- |